I Love This Court Case!

[peanutbutter]

Background:

 

Congress passes a law that requires the government to issue only true statements when issuing statements about science.

 

It's a sad statement that a law is required for our government to tell us only truth. That they are not allowed to publish false scientific statements.

 

But that sets the stage.

 

The false statement, THE BIG LIE, they have been telling us? That marijuana has no accepted medical use within the United States.

 

Why is this lie important?

 

In order to remain on schedule 1 of the controlled substance act, marijuana MUST have no accepted medical use within the United States.

 

That is a requirement for it to remain in that classification. If it has accepted medical use within the United States it is not allowed to be a schedule 1 substance.

 

Very important. This could end the war against marijuana in the United States!

 

So then .. that statement is an obvious false statement.

 

Then the ASA files a lawsuit against the government demanding that they stop issuing false statements about marijuana.

 

Here is the filing the ASA did : http://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/DQA_Appeal_Brief.pdf

 

So far, the only defense from the government?

 

The law doesn't apply to us. We have the right to lie to the American public.

 

This is making it's way toward the supreme court. When it does it should end the war against marijuana in the United States!

 

We are very very close to seeing the end of this war!

[YourHighness]

Problem with that is use of the word "accepted." You need to find out to whom the word applies. If it means accepted by the AMA then yes, it could be considered wrong. If it means accepted by the current administration then you are out of luck.

 

My guess is that it means accepted as determined by the DEA. So if the DEA says it isn't accepted then under that operational definition of accepted it is clearly not accepted and therefore not a lie.

 

If it read "NO medical use" as opposed to "no ACCEPTED medical use" then you would be back in business. But, alas, it does not...

[peanutbutter]

Problem with that is use of the word "accepted." You need to find out to whom the word applies. If it means accepted by the AMA then yes, it could be considered wrong. If it means accepted by the current administration then you are out of luck.

 

My guess is that it means accepted as determined by the DEA. So if the DEA says it isn't accepted then under that operational definition of accepted it is clearly not accepted and therefore not a lie.

 

If it read "NO medical use" as opposed to "no ACCEPTED medical use" then you would be back in business. But, alas, it does not...

 

There is another supreme court case that determined "accepted," within the controlled substance act, does not mean by the DEA. The law did not provide the DEA the right to do the "accepting." Since the law did not give room to the DEA to make that decision, it is not allowed for them to fill that gap.

 

If congress did not specify who must do the accepting then ANY local, state or federal law can do the accepting.

 

This has already been determined in the supreme court in 2006.

 

The stage is set. We are on the Verge of something wonderful!

 

The laws against marijuana can only be maintained by lies from the government.

 

They are a criminal fraud being committed against the citizens of the United States.

 

I say fraud because there is a financial incentive to maintain this fraud.

[TajMahal]

AYE!!

 

Good work PB..

[YourHighness]

Can you link the case you are referring to regarding the "accepted" element? I would like to read that.

 

Seems that if a state can alone do the accepting then why is it still considered schedule 1 by the DEA in states such as Michigan that specifically indicate in their statutes that there is an accepted medical use?

 

This seems odd. It's an interesting topic.

 

Edit: I would point out that regardless of whether there is an accepted medical use it can still be outlawed by congress. In other words if congress is forced to accept that it should be schedule II based on a state's assertion that there is accepted medical use then congress could still circumvent the scheduling process and make it illegal just because they want to do that.

[peanutbutter]

Can you link the case you are referring to regarding the "accepted" element? I would like to read that.

 

Seems that if a state can alone do the accepting then why is it still considered schedule 1 by the DEA in states such as Michigan that specifically indicate in their statutes that there is an accepted medical use?

 

This seems odd. It's an interesting topic.

 

Again I say, it is being maintained by fraud.

 

That is why this case is soooooo important.

[+RevThad]

This case definitely has legs to walk on, can't wait to see where and how it gets handled.

 

That being said, with all of the new positions, studies, and laws around the country, it might be time to start hammering the Dept of Health and Human Services with petitions, from organizations and individuals, to reevaluate the scheduling of marijuana. The CSA provides for that avenue of redress and from my understanding they have to follow up on each one and issue a finding based on the newly available evidence (which would include recommendations, laws, and science).

 

Just my opinion, and as I am a layman my understanding of the CSA could be incorrect.

[peanutbutter]

Can you link the case you are referring to regarding the "accepted" element? I would like to read that.

 

Seems that if a state can alone do the accepting then why is it still considered schedule 1 by the DEA in states such as Michigan that specifically indicate in their statutes that there is an accepted medical use?

 

This seems odd. It's an interesting topic.

 

Edit: I would point out that regardless of whether there is an accepted medical use it can still be outlawed by congress. In other words if congress is forced to accept that it should be schedule II based on a state's assertion that there is accepted medical use then congress could still circumvent the scheduling process and make it illegal just because they want to do that.

 

Here is the case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Oregon

 

And in response to your edit: Do you really think that congress would pass a new anti medical marijuana law at this time?

 

Not likely.

[peanutbutter]

In the 2006 case of Gonzales v Oregon .. key points.

 

Players ..

Oregon assisted suicide law.

DEA

 

context .. tadaaaaa The Federal Controlled Substance Act.

 

The DEA claimed that they have the right to determine what is accepted medical practice.

 

The Supreme Court disagreed.

[Guest finallyfree09]

used up all my po rep points for the day on this one pb. please keep us all posted on this case.

[+mayorherb]

Background:

 

Congress passes a law that requires the government to issue only true statements when issuing statements about science.

 

It's a sad statement that a law is required for our government to tell us only truth. That they are not allowed to publish false scientific statements.

 

But that sets the stage.

 

The false statement, THE BIG LIE, they have been telling us? That marijuana has no accepted medical use within the United States.

 

Why is this lie important?

 

In order to remain on schedule 1 of the controlled substance act, marijuana MUST have no accepted medical use within the United States.

 

That is a requirement for it to remain in that classification. If it has accepted medical use within the United States it is not allowed to be a schedule 1 substance.

 

Very important. This could end the war against marijuana in the United States!

 

So then .. that statement is an obvious false statement.

 

Then the ASA files a lawsuit against the government demanding that they stop issuing false statements about marijuana.

 

Here is the filing the ASA did : http://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/DQA_Appeal_Brief.pdf

 

So far, the only defense from the government?

 

The law doesn't apply to us. We have the right to lie to the American public.

 

This is making it's way toward the supreme court. When it does it should end the war against marijuana in the United States!

 

We are very very close to seeing the end of this war!

I havent got a chance to read all this, but it is a bunch of hog wash.pass the freaking buck. Man do i hate that.

[+RevThad]

Exactly, I thought their (DEA) only involvement was to be enforcement, not to do determinations. They are required to follow any instructions from the Commissioner and board of registration in pharmacy regarding the scheduling of a "drug or substance".

 

There are even guidelines for what must be considered in rescheduling...

(b) In making any finding under subsection (a) of this section or under subsection (a) of section three, the commissioner shall consider the following factors with respect to each drug or other substance proposed to be controlled or removed from the schedules:

 

(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.

 

(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.

 

(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.

 

(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.

 

(5) The scope, duration and significance of abuse.

 

(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.

 

(7) Its psychological or physiological dependence liability.

 

(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this chapter.

 

© The commissioner acting jointly with the board of registration in pharmacy shall by regulation pursuant to the provisions of chapter thirty A exclude any non-narcotic substance from a schedule if such substance may, under the Federal “Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970” and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, be lawfully sold over the counter without a prescription.

 

(d) Authority to control under this section shall not extend to distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

 

[peanutbutter]

Seems that if a state can alone do the accepting then why is it still considered schedule 1 by the DEA in states such as Michigan that specifically indicate in their statutes that there is an accepted medical use?

 

Why? Criminal fraud against the people of the United States!

 

What raises it to a criminal activity?

 

The DEA sets aside the needs and will of the citizens of the United States to save their jobs!

 

About 70% of the DEA budget is for the war against marijuana.

 

In order to keep their jobs, all they have to do is to continue to lie to the people.

[+RevThad]

Why? Criminal fraud against the people of the United States!

 

What raises it to a criminal activity?

 

The DEA sets aside the needs and will of the citizens of the United States to save their jobs!

 

About 70% of the DEA budget is for the war against marijuana.

 

In order to keep their jobs, all they have to do is to continue to lie to the people.

Absoluetly right, job security. Not to mention all of the other folks that make money from keeping it schedule 1, just think of rehabs (for MJ use?), seizures (auctions), etc...

[YourHighness]

Here is the case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Oregon

 

And in response to your edit: Do you really think that congress would pass a new anti medical marijuana law at this time?

 

Not likely.

 

Yes I think they would. Of the states that are currently MM friendly (if you can call them friendly), the law passed by similar margins. There is still a huge segment of the American populous that doesn't buy into MM. I would venture to guess that many states that are more conservative, such as deep south states, couldn't manage to get a state law passed if they tried. I would also guess that those states would come out against MM in a wider margin than the margin experienced by states that voted yes on the law.

 

Furthermore, federal law is all that stands between big pharma and their loss of huge profits. Big pharma is HUGE and their lobbyists would be crawling all over even the Barney Franks, pressuring them to make such a law. I think that for most conservative lawmakers such a law would be a no-brainer. For anyone on the fence big pharma would likely tend to control. That leaves the middle left and far left lawmakers to tow the line. I don't see that happening on an issue that is a hard sell as far as convincing people it is "necessary."

 

Put it this way, most Americans thought Obamacare was "not likely."

 

Since when do politicians work for the people....?

[TajMahal]

used up all my po rep points for the day on this one pb. please keep us all posted on this case.

 

Ditto!!

[peanutbutter]

Yes I think they would. Of the states that are currently MM friendly (if you can call them friendly), the law passed by similar margins. There is still a huge segment of the American populous that doesn't buy into MM. I would venture to guess that many states that are more conservative, such as deep south states, couldn't manage to get a state law passed if they tried. I would also guess that those states would come out against MM in a wider margin than the margin experienced by states that voted yes on the law.

 

Furthermore, federal law is all that stands between big pharma and their loss of huge profits. Big pharma is HUGE and their lobbyists would be crawling all over even the Barney Franks, pressuring them to make such a law. I think that for most conservative lawmakers such a law would be a no-brainer. For anyone on the fence big pharma would likely tend to control. That leaves the middle left and far left lawmakers to tow the line. I don't see that happening on an issue that is a hard sell as far as convincing people it is "necessary."

 

Put it this way, most Americans thought Obamacare was "not likely."

 

Since when do politicians work for the people....?

 

Great .. you have your guess and I have mine.

 

My point is that the current federal law is a fraud being maintained by criminal fraud.

 

Good luck pushing your will against the will of the people of the United States.

 

BTW .. the people of the United States are not a unruly civilian population that needs to be repressed. It is ghastly .. revolting .. to view us that way.

[Kevin]

Big pharm has more than one lobbyist for each member of Congress. How do you fight that?

 

Great post PB.

[YourHighness]

In the 2006 case of Gonzales v Oregon .. key points.

 

Players ..

Oregon assisted suicide law.

DEA

 

context .. tadaaaaa The Federal Controlled Substance Act.

 

The DEA claimed that they have the right to determine what is accepted medical practice.

 

The Supreme Court disagreed.

 

 

The problem is this case doesn't apply to what you are claiming it applies. You linked a wikipedia write-up which doesn't tell the full story. You must read the text of the full opinion.

 

You are superimposing the concept of "accepted medical use" over the phrase or concept used in the case, "legitimate medical purpose."

 

First of all the case deals with "legitimate medical purpse." The argument was that the drugs were not being used in a legit. medical manner. In other words the drugs were being used to kill someone in assisted suicide. That killing is what was at issue. The AG argued that controlled substances can only be used to treat a legitimate condition and that killing someone was not a legitimate condition so controlled substances shouldn't be used to do that. The argument was NOT that the controlled substances had no ACCEPTED medical use. The argument was not about the drugs legaility per se. In fact, the drugs used to kill the patient were schedule II drugs and therefore were considered TO HAVE an accepted medical use. The state was arguing that it could decide what was a legitimate medical purpose for the drugs and NOT that it could decide what was accepted medical use of a drug. If a drug had accepted medical use then it is considered of medical value and therefore can be used to treat prescribed legitimate conditions. The argument here wasn't whether the drug was considered of medical value but the argument was whether the condition was legitimate.

 

In other words the drugs were already legal under federal law if prescribed by a physician for a legitimate medical purpose. But, they had to be prescribed to treat something considered a legitimate medical condition. The word "legitimate" modifies the condition the drug is being used to treat.

 

Under the "accepted medial use" definition of schedule I drugs the word "accepted" doesn't modify the condition it modifies the drug itself. In other words you could have a legitimate medical use such as treating nausea but that doesn't matter because the drug marijuana is not considered to have an accepted medical use for anything.

 

The court didn't rule that the states could decide WHAT drugs to use. It ruled that the state could decide what to USE legal drugs for. The court ruled that the state decides what is a legitimate medical purpose for a legal drug. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether a state can decide that a schedule I drug has an accepted medical use.

 

This case grew out of the conservative Bush administration's attempt to control what it saw as a bad bad law, assisted suicide. It wanted to stop assisted suicide. It was ALL political. Remind you of something? It should. It is the same thing that is going on in Arizona right now. The liberal Obama administration is trying to control what it sees as a bad bad law. This is how our country works. It is neither a dem or repub thing...it is a political thing.

 

So to sum it up, the concept of accepted medical use was NOT ruled on.

[YourHighness]

Great .. you have your guess and I have mine.

 

My point is that the current federal law is a fraud being maintained by criminal fraud.

 

Good luck pushing your will against the will of the people of the United States.

 

BTW .. the people of the United States are not a unruly civilian population that needs to be repressed. It is ghastly .. revolting .. to view us that way.

Don't paint me as the bad guy here. Clearly I am all for MM. All I am doing is pointing out that your reasoning is flawed in regard to the legal state of things.

[peanutbutter]

The problem is this case doesn't apply to what you are claiming it applies. You linked a wikipedia write-up which doesn't tell the full story. You must read the text of the full opinion.

 

You are superimposing the concept of "accepted medical use" over the phrase or concept used in the case, "legitimate medical purpose."

 

First of all the case deals with "legitimate medical purpse." The argument was that the drugs were not being used in a legit. medical manner. In other words the drugs were being used to kill someone in assisted suicide. That killing is what was at issue. The AG argued that controlled substances can only be used to treat a legitimate condition and that killing someone was not a legitimate condition so controlled substances shouldn't be used to do that. The argument was NOT that the controlled substances had no ACCEPTED medical use. The argument was not about the drugs legaility per se. In fact, the drugs used to kill the patient were schedule II drugs and therefore were considered TO HAVE an accepted medical use. The state was arguing that it could decide what was a legitimate medical purpose for the drugs and NOT that it could decide what was accepted medical use of a drug. If a drug had accepted medical use then it is considered of medical value and therefore can be used to treat prescribed legitimate conditions. The argument here wasn't whether the drug was considered of medical value but the argument was whether the condition was legitimate.

 

In other words the drugs were already legal under federal law if prescribed by a physician for a legitimate medical purpose. But, they had to be prescribed to treat something considered a legitimate medical condition. The word "legitimate" modifies the condition the drug is being used to treat.

 

Under the "accepted medial use" definition of schedule I drugs the word "accepted" doesn't modify the condition it modifies the drug itself. In other words you could have a legitimate medical use such as treating nausea but that doesn't matter because the drug marijuana is not considered to have an accepted medical use for anything.

 

The court didn't rule that the states could decide WHAT drugs to use. It ruled that the state could decide what to USE legal drugs for. The court ruled that the state decides what is a legitimate medical purpose for a legal drug. That has no bearing whatsoever on whether a state can decide that a schedule I drug has an accepted medical use.

 

This case grew out of the conservative Bush administration's attempt to control what it saw as a bad bad law, assisted suicide. It wanted to stop assisted suicide. It was ALL political. Remind you of something? It should. It is the same thing that is going on in Arizona right now. The liberal Obama administration is trying to control what it sees as a bad bad law. This is how our country works. It is neither a dem or repub thing...it is a political thing.

 

So to sum it up, the concept of accepted medical use was NOT ruled on.

 

Glad to see that you took a look.

 

I've read the case several times.

 

The high court was very clear. It is not the place for the DEA to determine what is acceptable medical practice. Not within the CSA.

 

I agree that this case was about the accepted use of an existing medicine. But a large amount of time was spent discussing the role of the DEA and their power over the CSA. The DEA can not over rule congress and they can not over rule the CSA itself. In addition they can not over rule the acceptance of medical practice by local or state law. The CSA did not give them the authority to do so.

 

If congress wished to give them that power, it would have been spelled out within the act itself.

[peanutbutter]

Don't paint me as the bad guy here. Clearly I am all for MM. All I am doing is pointing out that your reasoning is flawed in regard to the legal state of things.

 

Well .. your first post here was to support the DEA.

 

I'm glad that you now present you are "all for MM."

 

What I've gleaned so far by your posts:

 

You are very knowledgeable about the law. In fact I believe you work with the law for a living.

 

So then, if you work with the law for a living, I'm left to guess which area.

 

You decided to become involved very quickly in this discussion, showing a, somewhat, vested interest in this law.

 

So who am I talking with? Possibly DEA directly.

 

If not DEA then probably a PA within the state.

 

How close did I hit?

[peanutbutter]

Let me make this clear.

 

The DEA has cause more suffering and death of innocent United States citizens than the Taleban ever dreamed of.

 

The DEA has killed more innocent people than Adolf Hitler.

 

How have they done this? By illegally denying life saving medicine to the US public.

 

I estimate that about fifteen hundred innocent people are suffering untimely deaths every day because of their attempt to keep their jobs.

 

This is a crime against humanity.

[YourHighness]

Glad to see that you took a look.

 

I've read the case several times.

 

The high court was very clear. It is not the place for the DEA to determine what is acceptable medical practice. Not within the CSA.

 

I agree that this case was about the accepted use of an existing medicine. But a large amount of time was spent discussing the role of the DEA and their power over the CSA. The DEA can not over rule congress and they can not over rule the CSA itself. In addition they can not over rule the acceptance of medical practice by local or state law. The CSA did not give them the authority to do so.

 

If congress wished to give them that power, it would have been spelled out within the act itself.

First off, the case wasn't about the accepted use of an existing medicine. The case was about whether there was a condition that existed to even be treated a certain way. I think you are missing the point of the case. There is a major distinction that you are missing between your argument and the reasoning in the case.

 

If I were a Dr. and I prescribed you anti-biotics to swallow in an effort to make your lawn green then that would be absurd. That was this case. The Dr. prescribed medicine to kill someone. It was the killing, just like the lawn, that was at issue and considered absurd by the AG. The AG argued that killing someone is not a legitimate medical purpose and, therefore, the Dr. shouldn't have been prescribing drugs for it since, under the CSA and resulting federal regulations, prescribing a scheduled drug requires that it only be prescribed to treat a legit. medical condition. The result would have been the same regardless of what drug was prescribed to hasten death because it wasn't an issue of the drug it was an issue of whether ANY drug that needs to be prescribed can be used for the purpose of killing. In other words, is prescribing that drug being done in an effort to TREAT someone. The argument was that killing someone is not treating them and therefore killing someone was not a legitimate medical purpose for which a prescribed drug should be used.

 

This was the ruling in the case:

 

Held: The CSA does not allow the Attorney General to prohibit doctors from prescribing regulated drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide under state law permitting the procedure. Pp. 8—28.

 

Dictum by the court in the opinion (discussions) is not binding precedent. Only the ruling is precedent. The ruling is narrowly tailored and you cannot simply substitute your own words just because it seems like a good analogy.

 

The ruling, boiled down, said that the AG does not have the authority to decide what is a legitimate medical purpose. The state of Oregon decided what a legit. med. purpose was and that's that.

 

But you cannot extrapolate that ruling to whether the AG (aka the justice dept, aka the DEA) can make a decision regarding scheduling of drugs based on the "acceptable medical use" standard. This is because congress HAS delegated authority through the enabling statute to let them decide what drugs do have an acceptable medical use. As you correctly point out there is NO enabling legislation that allows the feds to regulate what is a legitimate medical purpose and THAT is why the court ruled as they did. However, there IS enabling legislation that allows the feds to regulate scheduling. Accepted medical use doesn't mean whether your aunt mary or your family doctor or the MDCH or the surgeon general would consider MM a drug with an accepted medical use. It is a term of art and basically it means there is an accepted medical use if the feds say there is one.

 

For these reasons this case does not apply to the scheduling of MM.

 

FYI these are just facts so don't jump my hump and accuse me of being a mole, etc. I WANT mj rescheduled but my point is that this case offers no help in crossing that bridge.

[YourHighness]

Well .. your first post here was to support the DEA.

 

 

Really? My post SUPPORTS the DEA? And if I said that the DEA exists then that means I support them too?

What if I said the DEA busted a meth lab, would that mean i support them?

What if I said Lex Luthor walks on green at the traffic crossing and doesn't walk when the red hand lights? Does that mean I SUPPORT him?

No. All that would mean is that I am stating facts and that's all I did was state facts about the DEA.

I'm an anarchist at heart. I support very little the federal government does. But that doesn't mean I cannot reason.

As far as what I do--construction. But does that make what I have to say less worthy?

I consider myself well-read and I can reason. That's all I have going for me.

And work for the DEA--again, I spit on even the THOUGHT of that. The DEA attracts a certain undesirable element of our society. Mainly people who want that instant gratification of the power they feel when they bust someone. Just like cops. Most cops are just power-hungry intellectual mini-men. They have no power in reality but love the perception of power they get when they drive by in uniform. And they love the fact that the poor, or uneducated, or timid don't know enough to stand up to them. How many times have you contested a traffic ticket and got it dismissed or lowered? Plenty for me. But do the poor even know to try that? No. Don't get me started on law enforcement.

I'm an anrachist left over from the punk movement in the 70's. But, like I said, it doesn't mean I eat up what people say--you or the government.