Federal Legislation

Obama makes changes I can believe in 2009

Carl Olsen — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:23:29 GMT

On January 20, 2009, the Obama Administration released a memorandum instructing federal agencies not to use federal regulations to preempt state laws. Here is a link: click here. On January 30, 2009, the Obama Administration released a second memorandum instructing federal agencies not to use federal regulations to preempt state laws. Here is a link: click here

On January 22, 2009, the Obama Administration released guidance for religious exemptions from the federal Controlled Substances Act. Here is a link to the online version: click here and a link to the version I scanned and converted to a text document: click here

On May 20, 2009, the Obama Administration released a memorandum instructing federal agencies not to use federal regulations to preempt state laws. Here is a link to the online version: click here. Here is a link to a copy I downloaded: click here.

On October 19, 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice released guidelines for respecting states' rights to enact medical marijuana laws. Here is a link to the online version: click here and a link to the version I downloaded: click here

Grassley Responds to critics - November 21, 2009

Carl Olsen — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:13:33 GMT

Senator Grassley: Congress should debate drug policy

American Medical Association - November 11, 2009

Carl Olsen — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:59:22 GMT

AMA calls for removal of marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act - Executive Summary

AMA calls for removal of marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act - Text of Resolution

Senator Grassley Infected with Reefer Madness - Nov. 4, 2009

Carl Olsen — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:18:52 GMT

The Iowa Independent reports that Senator Grassley has contracted the deadly Reefer Madness virus

http://iowaindependent.com/21746/grassley-hoping-to-keep-medical-marijuana-illegal

Grassley hoping to keep medical marijuana illegal

Click here for the text of Grassley's proposed amendment

Peer-Reviewed Studies on Marijuana

Carl Olsen — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:22:07 GMT

This looks like a useful site:

Peer-Reviewed Studies on Marijuana

Congressional Research Service - March 2009

Carl Olsen — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:42:35 GMT

Here is a very good piece you ought to read:

Congressional Research Service - Library of Congress

Medical Marijuana: Review and Analysis of Federal and State Policies

Mark Eddy
Specialist in Crime Policy

March 31, 2009

Recent activity in state and federal courts

Carl Olsen — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:14:37 GMT

My how time flies when you are having fun. Time just keeps on slipping away.

I've been busy preparing legal briefs in two of my cases regarding the unlawful scheduling of marijuana in the state and federal controlled substances acts.

I filed my Petition for Review of the Drug Enforcement Administration's refusal to remove marijuana from Schedule I in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on March 2, 2009, and the response from the Drug Enforcement Administration is due on March 30, 2009.

My state marijuana scheduling case took an interesting twist when the Iowa Board of Pharmacy claimed in its Respondent's Brief that I did not address the scheduling criteria or submit any evidence. I don't know if the Board of Pharmacy threw it away, but I have certified mail receipts showing they received my legal arguments and evidence. I filed a Motion to add my Memorandum of Law to the record on review, and I filed another Motion to add my Exhibit to the record on review. I filed my Reply Brief on March 16, 2009.

A hearing in my state case has been scheduled for March 27, 2009

Obama Smoke and Mirrors Show

Carl Olsen — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:41:37 GMT

Everyone is in a tizzy over recent DEA raids on medical cannabis users in California since President Obama took office on January 20, 2009. Americans for Safe Access reported on February 5 that White House Spokesman Nick Shapiro expects President Obama to end that policy. On February 5, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws reported that a new Zogby Poll found that 72% of voters surveyed said President Obama should end the DEA raids. The Drug Policy Alliance is urging people to call the White House. The Marijuana Policy Project has reprinted the text of an article from the Washington Times describing the situation, and the Drug War Chronicle provides more details.

It will be interesting to see how President Obama tries to implement a new policy. Will there be an official policy that we can see in writing? Will it be an executive order? The Hinchey-Rohrabacher Amendment (introduced in Congress from 2003-2007) would have withheld funding for DEA enforcement, but it still leaves a foggy area that medical use of marijuana would still be technically illegal but simply withholding the money to implement a valid federal law. Since possession of marijuana will still be a federal crime, even a seed, the DEA will obviously still be making busts in medical marijuana states. The DEA will then, somehow, have to determine whether people they are trying to bust are protected by state law and avoid arresting them (or, something like that, right?).

I just can't see how this is going to prevent the DEA from abusing state-authorized medical users. Removing marijuana from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act would make federal and state law consistent, as they should be. The DEA is simply a regulatory agency. Congress never gave the DEA power to make medical decisions in the states. Removing marijuana from schedule I would make it easier to understand and would not rely on the good will of the Obama Administration when George Bush III takes over in 2013 or 2017. How is Obama going to convince the DEA that marijuana actually has accepted medical use anywhere in the United States? I don't think this is going to be as easy as the drug policy reform organizations make it out to be. I like the part where the reform groups ask us to send them more money because Obama kept his word to do something. That certainly gives the reform groups to reason to portray all of this talk (and that's all it is, so far) as a productive use of resources. Is it?

I mean, think about this. Are we asking Obama not to enforce the law? Isn't that exactly what this says?

Gee, what other laws would we simply like unenforced rather than repealed?

How simple. Just leave the law on the books and don't enforce it. Why didn't I think of that?

Bleep the science! What about the law?

Carl Olsen — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 17:00:36 GMT

On October 16, 2008, Marijuana Policy Project (MPP) filed a Data Quality Act Petition requesting that the drug czar's office correct information printed in the 2008 Marijuana Sourcebook — specifically, the claim that marijuana is the greatest cause of illegal drug abuse.

Another Data Quality Act case now pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Americans for Safe Access v. Department of Health and Human Services, No. 07-17388 (ASA v. DHHS) found there is no right to judicial review from a Data Quality Act petition. In its Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, November 20, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that "plaintiff has not shown that the action it seeks to compel is legally required."

Even if the Ninth Circuit reverses the ruling, ASA’s complaint is still based on science, as stated in the opening paragraph of their Amended Complaint:

Despite numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies establishing that marijuana is effective in treating AIDS wasting syndrome, muscle spasticity, emesis, appetite loss, 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.”

So, even if the Ninth Circuit agrees that HHS must rule on their petition under the Data Quality Act, ASA is still in the same position as the Cannabis Rescheduling Coalition Petition (CRC Petition) (http://www.drugscience.org/) where any final ruling is subject to the “rational basis test” analysis we saw in ACT v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131, 1134 (D.C. Cir. 1994):

On reviewing the Administrator's decision, we found the eight-factor test for determining whether a drug had a "currently accepted medical use" to be "in the main acceptable." ACT, 930 F.2d at 937. We noted the ambiguity of the phrase and the dearth of legislative history on point and deferred to the Administrator's interpretation as reasonable. Id. at 939 (citing Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843-45, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694, 104 S. Ct. 2778 (1984) (court may not substitute its own construction of ambiguous statutory provision for reasonable interpretation by agency of statute entrusted to its administration)).

The DEA Administrator’s final ruling in Gettman v. DEA, 290 F.3d 430 (D.C. Cir. 2002), affirms ACT v. DEA and makes very clear what is missing:

You do not assert in your petition that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or that marijuana has an accepted safety for use under medical supervision.

66 Fed. Reg. 20038 (April 18, 2001) (DEA Administrator’s response to Mr. Gettman's petition).

So, it’s obvious there is a missing piece that everyone else is leaving out. What about 13 state medical marijuana laws? Don’t they mean anything? What does “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” mean? What did the U.S. Supreme Court mean in Gonzales v. Oregon?

The Attorney General ... is not authorized to make a rule declaring illegitimate a medical standard for care and treatment of patients that is specifically authorized under state law.

Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 258 (2006).

When there is enough science that 13 states decide something has accepted medical use, the question is no longer a matter of science. Science has done it's part and now its a matter of law. Do the states have any say in the matter? The U.S. Supreme Court says they do. I'm putting my bets on the U.S. Supreme Court, because the DEA has the losing hand.

Medical Marijuana Letters to 13 State Attorneys General

Carl Olsen — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:11:47 GMT

On December 12, 2008 I mailed certified letters to each of the Attorneys General for the 13 states that accept the medical use of marijuana, asking them why they have not contacted the United States Drug Enforcement Adminsitration about removal of marijuana from schedule I of the federal Controlled Substances Act. Links to those letters are listed below:

All of those letters have been received:

AK
7007 1490 0002 0045 9699
Delivered, December 19, 2008, 7:49 am, JUNEAU, AK 99811
Arrival at Unit, December 19, 2008, 5:44 am, JUNEAU, AK 99803
Acceptance, December 13, 2008, 9:33 am, DES MOINES, IA 50317

CA
7007 1490 0002 0045 9682
Delivered, December 18, 2008, 9:59 am, SACRAMENTO, CA 95815
Arrival at Pick-Up-Point, December 18, 2008, 9:38 am, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
Arrival at Unit, December 18, 2008, 9:14 am, SACRAMENTO, CA 95813
Acceptance, December 13, 2008, 9:33 am, DES MOINES, IA 50317

CO
7007 1490 0002 0045 9675
Delivered, December 17, 2008, 11:07 am, DENVER, CO 80203
Arrival at Unit, December 17, 2008, 9:02 am, DENVER, CO 80218
Acceptance, December 13, 2008, 9:32 am, DES MOINES, IA 50317

HI
7007 1490 0002 0045 9668
Delivered, December 19, 2008, 8:49 am, HONOLULU, HI 96813
Acceptance, December 13, 2008, 9:31 am, DES MOINES, IA 50317

ME
7007 1490 0002 0045 9651
Delivered, December 16, 2008, 8:49 am, AUGUSTA, ME 04333
Arrival at Unit, December 16, 2008, 7:14 am, AUGUSTA, ME 04330
Acceptance, December 13, 2008, 9:31 am, DES MOINES, IA 50317

MI
7007 1490 0002 0045 9644
Delivered, December 16, 2008, 9:21 am, LANSING, MI 48909
Arrival at Unit, December 16, 2008, 6:49 am, LANSING, MI 48924
Acceptance, December 13, 2008, 9:30 am, DES MOINES, IA 50317

MT
7007 1490 0002 0045 9637
Delivered, December 19, 2008, 5:57 am, HELENA, MT 59601
Arrival at Unit, December 19, 2008, 5:20 am, HELENA, MT 59601
Acceptance, December 13, 2008, 9:29 am, DES MOINES, IA 50317

NV
7007 1490 0002 0045 9613
Delivered, December 17, 2008, 9:58 am, CARSON CITY, NV 89701
Acceptance, December 13, 2008, 9:28 am, DES MOINES, IA 50317

NM
7007 1490 0002 0045 9620
Delivered, December 18, 2008, 8:36 am, SANTA FE, NM 87504
Arrival at Unit, December 18, 2008, 6:54 am, SANTA FE, NM 87501
Acceptance, December 13, 2008, 9:28 am, DES MOINES, IA 50317

OR
7007 1490 0002 0045 9606
Delivered, December 18, 2008, 10:39 am, SALEM, OR 97301
Acceptance, December 13, 2008, 9:27 am, DES MOINES, IA 50317

RI
7007 1490 0002 0045 9590
Delivered, December 17, 2008, 9:25 am, PROVIDENCE, RI 02903
Arrival at Unit, December 17, 2008, 7:08 am, PROVIDENCE, RI 02903
Acceptance, December 13, 2008, 9:26 am, DES MOINES, IA 50317

VT
7007 1490 0002 0045 9583
Delivered, December 16, 2008, 11:33 am, MONTPELIER, VT 05609
Arrival at Unit, December 16, 2008, 11:04 am, MONTPELIER, VT 05602
Acceptance, December 13, 2008, 9:26 am, DES MOINES, IA 50317

WA
7007 1490 0002 0045 9576
Delivered, December 18, 2008, 7:18 am, OLYMPIA, WA 98504
Arrival at Unit, December 18, 2008, 6:49 am, OLYMPIA, WA 98501
Acceptance, December 13, 2008, 9:25 am, DES MOINES, IA 50317

Federal Legislation

Obama makes changes I can believe in 2009

Grassley Responds to critics - November 21, 2009

American Medical Association - November 11, 2009

Senator Grassley Infected with Reefer Madness - Nov. 4, 2009

Peer-Reviewed Studies on Marijuana

Congressional Research Service - March 2009

Recent activity in state and federal courts

Obama Smoke and Mirrors Show

I mean, think about this. Are we asking Obama not to enforce the law? Isn't that exactly what this says?

Gee, what other laws would we simply like unenforced rather than repealed?

How simple. Just leave the law on the books and don't enforce it. Why didn't I think of that?

Bleep the science! What about the law?

Medical Marijuana Letters to 13 State Attorneys General

December 12, 2008 - Letter to the Attorney General of Alaska

December 12, 2008 - Letter to the Attorney General of California

December 12, 2008 - Letter to the Attorney General of Colorado

December 12, 2008 - Letter to the Attorney General of Hawaii

December 12, 2008 - Letter to the Attorney General of Maine

December 12, 2008 - Letter to the Attorney General of Michigan

December 12, 2008 - Letter to the Attorney General of Montana

December 12, 2008 - Letter to the Attorney General of Nevada

December 12, 2008 - Letter to the Attorney General of New Mexico

December 12, 2008 - Letter to the Attorney General of Oregon

December 12, 2008 - Letter to the Attorney General of Rhode Island

December 12, 2008 - Letter to the Attorney General of Vermont

December 12, 2008 - Letter to the Attorney General of Washington