Yesterday in Sacramento a federal judge heard closing arguments in a motion challenging the constitutionality of cannabis’ Schedule I classification.
At issue is whether a rational basis exists for the government’s contention that cannabis is properly designated as a schedule I substance — defined as possessing a “high potential for abuse,” “no currently accepted medical use,” and “a lack of accepted safety… under medical supervision.” A federal court has not heard evidence on the matter since the early 1970s.
Lawyers for the federal government argue that it is rational for the government to maintain the plant’s prohibitive status as long as there remains any dispute among experts in regard to its safety and efficacy. Defense counsel — attorneys Zenia Gilg and Heather Burke of the NORML Legal Committee — contend that the federal law prohibiting Justice Department officials from interfering with the facilitation of the regulated distribution of cannabis in over 20 U.S. states cannot be reconciled with the government’s continued insistence that the plant is deserving of its Schedule I status under federal law.
In October, defense counsel and experts presented evidence over a five-day period arguing that the scientific literature is not supportive of the plant’s present categorization. “Numerous clinical trials have been conducted using whole plant marijuana and have concluded the evidence strongly suggests therapeutic value,” defense counsel affirmed in a written brief filed with the court last month. “Physicians in 23 states and the District of Columbia have been recommending whole plant cannabis for treatment of a myriad of medical conditions. The United States, through SAMHSA (Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration, a branch of HHS), holds a patent [on the therapeutic utility of the plant].”
“… It is unimaginable to believe that if heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, or even over-the-counter medications were being distributed in 23 states and the District of Columbia, Congress and the President would abdicate all regulatory authority to those jurisdictions, and then cut off all funds… to intervene in related distribution activities… Even the most vivid imagination would be hard pressed to reconcile such action with a ‘rational belief’ that marijuana is one of the most dangerous drugs in the nation.”
In a brief filed with the court by the federal government, it contends: “Congress’ decision to treat marijuana as a controlled substance was and remains well within the broad range of permissible legislative choices. Defendants appear to argue that Congress was wrong or incorrectly weighed the evidence. Although they failed to prove even that much, it would be insufficient. Rational basis review does not permit the Court’s to ‘second guess’ Congress’ conclusions, but only to enjoin decisions that are totally irrational or without an ‘imaginable’ basis.”
They add: “Congress is not required to be ‘right,’ nor does it matter if the basis on which Congress made its decision turns out to be ‘wrong.’ All that is required is that Congress could rationally have believed that its action — banning the production and distribution of marijuana — would advance its indisputably legitimate interests in promoting public health and welfare. Because qualified experts disagree, it is not for the Courts to decide the issue and the statute must be upheld.”
The Judge is anticipated to rule on defense’s motion within 30 days.
Legal briefs in the case, United States v. Pickard, et. al., No. 2:11-CR-0449-KJM, are available online here.
This piece first appeared on the NORML Blog.
Cannabis, hemp, marihuana, marijuana – are they all the same thing, or different things? What is the legal difference?
Is it a plant, a plant species, parts of a plant – “the seeds thereof…”, “the resin extracted…”, “every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation…”, a drug, or an “other substance”?
What is it that is prohibited? What is not included in that prohibition?
Is it’s Schedule 1 status temporary, or permanent for all time?
Is the marijuana law clear, effective, or even constitutional? What kind of law is this?
Maybe the judge can find a way to end the confusion and settle these questions.
This year is a good time to ask your representatives if they will support this simple definition of marijuana which actually shows respect for our Constitution:
16. The term “marijuana” means all parts of the smoke produced by the combustion of the plant Cannabis sativa L.
Do it for your Constitution. Do it for your children.
Cannabis and marijuana are the same thing, although the words describe a wide range of strains.Hemp is only called hemp. All the other names describe the drug. Hemp is the male plant, it contains basically no THC,it cannot get you high, and it posses many useful characteristics: high nutritional value (high omega 3 content), it makes great ethanol for a source of renewable energy, it can be used to make paper, clothes, cement, and more! What gets you high are called buds, buds are the female reproductive organ. The male plant has seeds. Even if marijuana was dangerous and should be illegal, even if we believed in that crap… There is absolutely no logical reasons whatsoever to outlaw hemp. Period. It’s simply absurd to do so. Mass insanity.
I’ll agree with all but the Omega 3 comment. While the plant may be high in Omega 3 content the human body doesn’t process this very well. In fact it hardly uses any of it at all compared to fish. A very common misconception.
http://chriskresser.com/why-fish-stomps-flax-as-a-source-of-omega-3
That is from Flax, Cannabis also produces an exclusive protein, that is a highly digestible globular protein called Edestin. Everything nutritional derived from cannabis is readily available to the body.
Someone missed my point. For those that don’t have any chemistry background. What is commonly confused is that the plant itself has very little “Digestible” nutritional value to humans. Our bodies simply can’t digest and absorb the goodness in them.
However, the “NUT” or seed is very digestible and contains some of the highest levels of good stuff like Omega 3. So if you “Grind” up the seeds and eat them in the right way they are great for you!
Hope I dumbed it down good enough for you Tj but really I just wanted to explain it for everyone else.
As I regularly do, I highly suggest everyone do thier own research.
Well chemistry and biology look at fatty acids differently. Chemists count the carbonyl carbon, as where biologists count “n” or (w) carbon. Secondly, you are highly mistaken when you say its not digestible. Edestin is a G-coupled protein that is readily available to the body and is similar to the globulins found in the bloodstream. As well it provides all 8 essential Amino Acids. Each resource has its use, as the different Omega 3 fatty acids have different roles in the human body…there is more to this than just double bonds and carbon chains…you are thinking like a chemist.
You are thinking like someone who read a few articles and copied and pasted some information together.
As I said before I disagree with Kevin I mean Tj I mean Keven.. whoever you are…
I simply recommend that people do their own research since this guy seems like a politician that can’t admit he’s wrong.
Hemp is a strain of cannabis. Its main difference from the cannabis that we smoke is that it contains a small amount of THC. Scientifically it i the same plant, but has been bred for the purpose of manufacturing etc rather than intoxication. It is not solely male, as then you could not continue to produce seed, as seed production comes from the female of a plant, and pollen production is from the male. You need both to produce seed. Female flowers are buds, and male flowers are simply flowers producing pollen. Scientifically,Hemp and marijuana are both cannabis plants. Legally, governments have placed limits on the THC levels of cannabis for it to be legally allowed to be called hemp..
I see. Thanks mate
Hemp is NOT the Male plant. Hemp is a chemotype. It has both male and female plants, and is just low in cannabinoids, which gives Hemp its tensile strength for textiles.
Ah well, you learn something new everyday. Thanks
Marijuana with an h is the original Spanish spelling. In the 1930s, Hearst newspapers started using the Spanish word marijuana to describe ( pot, weed, cannabis, etc) because it sounded sexual, to fuel a scare campaign about it. It was during this period that cannabis was outlawed. Hemp was a threat to the paper industry in which Hearst had big investments… But it was also a racist thing, since latinos and blacks were bigger users of cannabis. Now that I think about it, perhaps cannabis describes both hemp and marijuana. but it make more sens to say hemp when talking about hemp.
If the term marijuana means “all parts of the smoke produced by the combustion of the plant Cannabis sativa L.”, than Cannabis indica would not be considered marijuana.
How can the US government claim that cannabis have no redeeming medical value when it holds a patent on that substance exactly for that purpose? Patent No. 6630507, held by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, covers cannabis/cannabinoid use for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, heart attack, Crohn’s disease, diabetes and arthritis (This is mentioned in the article above). How can the government grant legal protections over an illegal substance? They can’t. It’s a legal irrationality and on that basis, cannabis should be removed from Schedule 1…
One of the most rational arguments I’ve heard with evidence to back it up! Nice job!!
Thanks. Hopefully the judge comes to the same conclusion…
Hope you don’t mind if I use your argument man. Because It’s rock-solid man.
Please do. Use it anywhere that it can do some good…
weirdly?…….the supreme court ruled against a company that wanted to patent a natural process, in 2013…….meanwhile the FDA is like, dadeeda, don’t look over here…..
There’s been a lot of hypocrisy and favoritism going on in government for a long time. Our generation is very lucky to have the internet as a source of immediate information because it gives the people a powerful voice against actions like this in government. In the past, we had to rely on government or business for our sources of information. Now we get it on our own in unbiased or less biased forms and we can now use this information to increasingly make our leaders more accountable to our needs, not lobbyist desires…
that is more or less the how they lost……sunlight is the best disinfectant.
don’t forget that eating cannabis oil will causes “apoptis” in cancer cells…….meaning it reprograms them to turn off…….think about how much money the cancer “industry” is worth……hundreds of billion each year….much more World wide
I do remember reading an article about that. I think the study came from the UK, right?
There have been numerous studies confirming cannabis oil causes apoptis in cancer cells…….the NIC agreed as well, in 2013…….(national institute of cancer)……
Genesis 1:29
“Schedule I Cannabis” is a Damned lie. “Schedule II” will NOT do.
Cannabis SHALL be removed from CSA “Schedule I”, and placed in “CSA Subchapter I, Part A, §802. Definitions, paragraph (6)”, appended to the list “distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco”, where it will STILL be the least-toxic in the category [by several orders of magnitude].
In other words, completely EXEMPT from CSA scheduling.
Anything short of that is ABSOLUTELY unacceptable.
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/802.htm