Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The United States has filed a
Motion to Dismiss my federal civil complaint that marijuana no longer fits the definition for Schedule I ("no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States"). See my
Civil Complaint and
Memorandum of Law at
http://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/petitions/dea.aspx.
The
State of Iowa has responded to the
ACLU of Iowa's Civil Complaint regarding Iowa's drug law which claims that marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. I have filed a
Motion to Intervene. For further information on this case, please see my web site at
http://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/petitions/iowa.aspx
It's been a while since I've had time to add any new blog entries. I've been busing working on a criminal case,
United States v. Dejay Monson, No. 8:08-cr-00388,
United States District Court, District of Nebraska. I've prepared a
Motion to Dismiss and
Memorandum of Law that I'm hoping the federal public defender will file for Mr. Monson.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
On October 7, The
Iowa Board of Pharmacy Examiners issued its
final order on my
petition to reschedule marijuana. Judging from its order, it's hard to believe the board even bothered to read my petition. I'm working on a response and I've posted a rough draft on the
Iowans for Medical Marijuana website.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
The
Iowa Board of Pharmacy has decided to makes its final ruling on my
Petition to Reschedule Marijuana in a closed session on October 7, 2008. The meeting will not be open to the public. The Executive Director tells me I can expect a copy of the ruling on October 8, 2008, or soon thereafter.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
I filed a
civil complaint in U.S. District Court yesterday, Olsen v. Mukasey, et al, No. 4-08-CV-370. Both the
complaint and the
memorandum of law can be downloaded at
http://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/petitions/dea.aspx as well as all 31 exhibits.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Since the U.S. Supreme Court did such a poor job of chronicling the history of DEA marijuana rescheduling efforts in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 15 n.23 (2005), I have posted the relevant cases at: http://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/documents/young.aspx
Starting in 1972, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) began its campaign to reclassify marijuana. Grinspoon & Bakalar 13-17. After some fleeting success in 1988 when an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) declared that the DEA would be acting in an "unreasonable, arbitrary, and capricious" manner if it continued to deny marijuana access to seriously ill patients, and concluded that it should be reclassified as a Schedule III substance, Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881, 883-884 (CA1 1987), the campaign has proved unsuccessful. The DEA Administrator did not endorse the ALJ's findings, 54 Fed. Reg. 53767 (1989), and since that time has routinely denied petitions to reschedule the drug, most recently in 2001. 66 Fed. Reg. 20038 (2001). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has reviewed the petition to reschedule marijuana on five separate occasions over the course of 30 years, ultimately upholding the Administrator's final order. See Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 304 U.S. App. D.C. 400, 15 F.3d 1131, 1133 (1994).
It is extremely interesting to note that the Supreme Court recognized that marijuana was in the wrong schedule of the Controlled Substances Act and none of the parties to the case picked up on it. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 28 n.37 (2005):
We acknowledge that evidence proffered by respondents in this case regarding the effective medical uses for marijuana, if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I. See, e.g., Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base 179 (J. Joy, S. Watson, & J. Benson eds. 1999) (recognizing that "[s]cientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC [Tetrahydrocannabinol] for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation"); see also Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629, 640-643 (CA9 2002) (Kozinski, J., concurring) (chronicling medical studies recognizing valid medical uses for marijuana and its derivatives). But the possibility that the drug may be reclassified in the future has no relevance to the question whether Congress now has the power to regulate its production and distribution. Respondents' submission, if accepted, would place all homegrown medical substances beyond the reach of Congress' regulatory jurisdiction.
Monday, September 01, 2008
My Motion to File Amicus Curiae Brief was denied in Santa Cruz v. Gonzales on Thursday, August 28, 2008, following the Court's ORDER of Wednesday, August 20, 2008 allowing Santa Cruz to proceed with an argument that the federal government has exceeded it's powers under the Tenth Amendment. My objection was based on statutory law which prohibits the federal government from including anything in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act which has any accepted medical use. Obviously, California has a law which appears to accept the medical use of marijuana.
For a detailed examination of California's medical marijuana law, the following cases may be useful: People v. Kelly, California 2nd Appellate District (5/22/2008 - striking down quantity limits); San Diego v. NORML, California 4th Appellate District (7/31/2008 - explaining federal statute which allows states to enact medical marijuana laws).
The California Attorney General has just issued guidlines on medical use of marijuana in California: Medical Marijuana Guidelines, California Attorney General (August 2008)
Friday, August 22, 2008
An
Audio Recording of myself and George McMahon speaking to the
Iowa Board of Pharmacy Examiners on July 29, 2008 is now available.