E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Anthony Bolante / Reuters file
A marijuana starter plant is shown at Canna Pi medical marijuana dispensary in Seattle on Nov. 20.
Advocates of looser federal restrictions on marijuana suffered a significant legal setback Tuesday, as a panel of three judges found that the federal government acted properly in refusing to loosen restrictions on pot.
Pro-marijuana groups and a disabled veteran who said it improves his medical condition asked the Drug Enforcement Administration to put marijuana on a lower tier of federal restrictions. They said the agency was ignoring a growing body of scientific evidence that it has some medical benefits. When the DEA refused, they sued.
But by a 2-1 vote, a panel of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said Tuesday that the DEA did consider all the available information. "We find nothing in the record that could move us to conclude that the agency failed to prove by substantial evidence that such studies confirming marijuana's medical efficacy do not exist," the majority opinion said.
The ruling comes as a stark contrast to actions by a growing number of states that allow use of marijuana on the recommendation of a doctor. And voters in Colorado and Washington approved ballot measures in November that ease state restrictions against recreational use.
The DEA has long classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug, the most-restrictive category, finding it "has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." The production, sale, and use of marijuana remain illegal under federal law as a result.
Judge Harry Edwards, who wrote Tuesday's opinion, took note of the controversy. "There is a serious debate in the United States over the efficacy of marijuana for medicinal uses," he said.
But the issue for the court, he said, "is not whether marijuana could have some medical benefits." Instead, Edwards said, the court's job was to determine whether the DEA acted within the scope of its authority in declining to reclassify the drug, given claims in the lawsuit that peer-reviewed scientific studies found some evidence that it could be beneficial.
"We defer to the agency's interpretation of these regulations and find that substantial evidence supports its determination" that no studies exist that are "adequate and well-controlled" proving its effectiveness in medical treatments.
The dissenting judge, Karen LeCraft Henderson, expressed no view on whether marijuana has medical benefits. Instead, she said the court should have dismissed the case on the grounds that none of those filing the lawsuit had legal authority to bring the case to court in the first place.
Leave a Comment:
My brother is blind but befor his eyes went bad to the point he couldnt rlly see he smoked and his eyes stop going bad . I told him to tell his eye doc to let them know that the pot stop his eyes from going bad ... but he didnt because he didnt want to go to jail . now he stop smoking it and his eyes are worst . i dont smoke pot but if the gov would do a med resrch on ppl who rlly need it they will find that it is needed......
If the government can't tax it and the drug companies can't get a patient on it. It's going to be illegal and on the outlaw drug list. Simple as that. If they don't get their cut, you don't get the drug.
I suppose it has been proven that Bacardi and Jose Cuervo have a multitude of medicinal uses.
bawawawahaha ! too funny somthing keeps booze and cigs legal...it's not common sence.
No real surprise here. The State will always trump the states, regardless of the "consensus" science.
no evidence my ass, they all should be thrown off the bench, because they are not smart enough to sit on it. there has been overwhelming evidence for more than 20 years on the medicinal effects of marijuana, and its been proven alot more safe than the drugs the FDA are killing people with every year. jesus christ, really?
Ok here is the med part for the gov ..... my brother was going blind all the doc didnt know what was causing it giving him dif meds nothing stop it but when he started smoking pot his eyes stop going bad ...... i told him to tell his doc but he didnt want to go to jail or get in to any trouble ..... so he stop smoking it and his eyes got worst it needs to be legal for med ...... why dont they do a study on this and btw i dont smoke pot but if it is to help ppl with med needs im all for it...
They're just stalling until big pharma can take over the market. This whole country is bought, and we need to fix it. Get our democracy back! wolf-pac (dot) com!
Pot legalization has one primary enemy: Big Pharma. Can you imagine how much it would cut into their profits if people were allowed to grow and use a weed rather than buying their patented, government-protected, over-priced snake oil?
All you T-totalers who say it doesn't have medical uses - If you ever have any medical issue involving pain, wait until you give it a try: You'll do a 180-degree turn in your view.
Quit protecting Big Pharma - those pigs are killing all of us in more ways than one.
have fun
Just as every other thing the government gets involved in the war on drugs is/has been a disaster. They want to ban guns, hell they can't ban drugs nor could they ban alcohol.
The government has ruined many good people's lives over pot.
When will people get tired of Big Government and sucking that government tit and vote people into office that want to run this country the way is was designed. This country was not built by people who want government to wipe their asses.
OK rant over, lol. And I don't even smoke pot but I couldn't care less if you choose to.
NO ONE has said they want to ban guns. Yes they want to put more restrictions and ban certain types of guns and magazines and have background checks on all gun purchases. Your comment suggests they want to ban ALL guns which is just NOT accurate.
They don't want to ban all guns or take away your 2nd Amendment rights. That will never happen anyway.
The feds war on drugs has been an expensive and dismal failure. Now the wish to start an equally stupid war on law abiding gun owners which will do nothing to keep guns out of criminals hands.
Here is an example of Big pharma controling the courts, but if we put it in an pill made by a company then thats ok? Can the courts explain that? No studies really? THey are protecting their huge under the table money they get, their vacations to Europe, their girl friends apartment and car, their Vegas trips and so on. What a joke our court system has become, Was there a study on Alcohol that made it legal? You read this crap and just shake your head and wonder, how did our beautiful country get so screwed up?
Of course they did, these three jokers are simply corporate puppets dressed like judges. Their true role is to take special interest money from big Pharma as well as the alcohol and tobacco industry to keep this law right where it is.
are you all so ready to kill yourselves? put a gun in your mouth and pull the freaking trigger all ready. fact cigarette smoke causes cancer . you all think marijuana smoke with its high chemical make up wont do the same. you all need a drug to make yourselves better? i seen you marijuana users in action not impressed . dangerous, lowered intelligence i have seen nothing to make me believe marijuana is good for anything. which shows how stupid the human race truly is. you all are sad sad animals.
You couldn't see the trees from the forrest if you were standing next to them...john-1377778
Why are there trolls making the same stupid pro illegalization comments every 6 to 8 pages apart...are these rwnj's paid to post?????
The pharma lobby are the bad guys in black that keep pulling the strings to keep it on the top tier.
correct me if i am wrong but I read that marijuanna is in a seperate class when it comes to prosecuting in federal court. I don't know if that is true. Are the sentences lighter? Just wondering.....I do say legalize it though and clear some space in our federal prisons for REAL criminals.
Brandon Schmitz your ideas for politicians has some good points but you give the voting system too much credit to allow this country work as it needs to. You give by far, too much power to the voter after such a large percentage of voters have proven beyond any doubt that voting is a right that a person has. But thinking, investigating and listening first is also a part of that right. But the numbers of the last two elections show they are not a basic requirement for voting. There needs to be away of questing the people in line to vote, such as why are you on the side of the party you're voting with, who is their running mate, what are a couple of things the person has promised to do for you that you believe in. Their needs to be a requirement for the voter to be informed. Before getting a drivers license a written test is taken to make sure we know the basic laws of the road. Why can't we do that with voting? I believe most politicians started in office to make a difference. They believed things needed to change and wanted to do something about it. But at a certain point in their career they met bigger and more powerful politicians and some lobbyists to buy them dinner and then became scrambled and they forgot why they started in politics in the first place. So if you added something about making it a law that any politician that speaks to a lobbyist will be brought up on felony charges and once convicted will be striped of all rights, benefits, retirement and anything he or she has acquired during his political career. Politicians are voted in to be a single voice for many. They are suppose to vote for the things that their community, county, city and state put them in office for. If a person runs on a political platform that states legalizing pot is number on agenda, and the person is voted in, there should be an easy way to impeach that person if that person starts voting against pot. We put politicians in office to speak for us. But too often they stop speaking for us and start speaking for what ever future helps them most. Just some early morning thoughts.
You're asking for more control of the people. It matters not if you vote for a person because you like the color of his red shirt. THAT IS YOUR RIGHT.
If you start controling WHO can vote, you might as well just eliminate free elections.
Not true, the right to vote is for the intention of electing the most able person to meet the needs of the people. I'm not saying one attribute (your example: color of shirt) shouldn't be considered important, but the reason to vote is not to get a certain person because of their smile or race or age or anything that is external. The person that gets voted in is meant to do the things, not that I want them to or you want them to, but what we want them to do. When you and I vote for a person and they win the office of city council, all the way up to the president of our country, it is our (the voters) duty to look past the way somebody looks, smiles or dresses. And there's a simple reason for this, our futures are effected whether a little with voting for city council, or a lot, when voting for president. Voters have to know about the person, the beliefs and goals of that person. The first time President Obama ran for office he wasn't considered a threat because he's black. Although you may not remember up until and during the debates with Hilary he said he wasn't black, but instead mixed. He won the 2008 presidential race not because he is considered black but because of three very big factors: 1) People believed republicans are the reason the economy went to hell. 2) People thought that Obama could keep all the ridiculous and in no way achievable by any president regardless of party affiliation, promises he made. 3) The people of this country are tired of the black person always being considered for the short end of the stick before the white person is considered. If Hilary had been black I have no doubt she would have been elected president. And I don't like her or her husband, but I feel certain she would have been a better president than our current president. The job of the president is not supposed to be an 80 or 85 percent OJT (on the job training) position. He was a junior senator with very little experience as senator because he started campaigning for president the 3rd year in office. Had he spent another term as senator be might have remember some of what he learned in political science class that as president he would not have near the power needed to keep even 25 percent of his promises. Although if he had remembered and didn't make the promises he made, Hilary might be president now.
I'll not allow you to stop me from voting, just because you don't like how I'm going to vote.
What theheck are these judges thinking? The American People want Jobs & lowering
Cannabis to a different schedule would allow the States to do just that. People
who need it would be able to get it & look at the income that this would
bring to the Local, State & Federal. I guess these Judges & the people
we have in Congress would rather have the DRUG CARTELS MAKE ALL THE MONEY. We
Americans know the Government lied when they had the report made up in the
Nixon Presidency. Hemp should be LEGAL, But NO we have to IMPORT Hemp instead
of growing it here in the Good Old USA. Our Government Love to throw away OUR
MONEY. Wake UP AMERICA FOR WE HAVE SPOKEN
I would rather have Marijuana Legal in the USA than have all that Money Going To The Drug Cartels. If a Person has less than a Pound of Cannabis then they should not going to Prison. We have to ask ourselves, Why is the Government doing what their doing? Keeping Hemp out of the hands of Our Farmers & The Jobs that could be made by expanding the SELLS of Cannabis. Our Government needs to WAKE the HELL UP!!! We The People want Hemp & Cannabis LEGAL:!!
I don't believe a majority wants marijuana legal...... BUT, it matters not what I believe.
The fact is, if pro-pot folks would get off their stoned ass's and get up a petition, they could get it on the ballet.
I strongly believe in majority rules. Just saying what you THINK you majority wants doesn't get it....... PROVE IT.
Actually I do believe that a majority wants marijuana legal. As a person who has no interest in smoking it, has never actually "used" it though I did try it a couple times decades ago and it did nothing for me, I believe that it should be legalized and there are many others like me out there. I also believe that just like alcohol there should be penalties for driving under the influence. For people who claim that pot users don't drive, they just sit home, imbibe, munch and chill I can assure you that many people imbibe outside their home and then drive home under the influence. I have also known people who smoke while driving their vehicles. There is no logical reason why it should be illegal. I can bet that you encounter many people every single day that smoke pot and you have no idea who they are. They are everyday people doing everyday things.