Toronto: Stirling Hemp Company Gets $2 Million To Open Plant
* News
Stonehedge Bio-Resources Inc.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
http://www.elorin.ca/imagedb/StonehedgeNew.jpg
Stirling research scientist John Baker has spent a decade growing and testing varieties of hemp.
He's now taken a giant step toward producing industrial hemp for the global marketplace.
The founder and president of Stonehedge Bio- Resources Inc. was in Toronto Wednesday to secure $2 million from private investors to open the first North American bio-processing plant for industrial hemp by this time next year.
Baker has received three letters of intent to invest more than $2 million from Lime Technology Ltd. in the United Kingdom, American Lime Technology in the United States and another private UK investor. Also attending the ceremony and news con-f erence were John Wilkinson, minister of research and innovation and Northumberland- West MPP Lou Rinaldi.
"I am delighted to
accept these letters of intent on behalf of my company," Baker said. "We have a vision to make Stonehedge the leader in industrial hemp in North America and today we are one step closer."
Baker said the investment will allow him to hire five employees this year and employ up to 27 people by 2011, as well as creating new opportunities for up to 200 farmers.
He plans to open a biorefining facility along the Highway 41 corridor between Oshawa and Belleville that would produce Hemcrete, an environmentally-friendly limestone building material similar to concrete.
The company also expects to produce more than $17 million per year in renewable hemp fibre, woodlike chips, pellets, matting and seed products.
"These bio-based products signify the future of sustainable development and clean green technology by replacing products that cause serious environmental damage with innovative carbon-negative alternatives," he told The Intelligencer in a telephone interview from a Toronto hotel.
Industrial hemp has been grown for thousands of years to make fibre for clothing, furniture, ropes, sails and more.
Baker said that as an agricultural crop, hemp is beneficial -- it can be readily grown organically as it does not require the use of harsh chemical herbicides, pesticides and defoliants as do many other fibre crops.
Baker and his wife, Christine, have owned and operated Stonehedge Kennels and horse breeding farm on Eggleton Road southeast of Stirling for the past 25 years. Their 50-acre farm is located almost next door to their daughter, Beth Bouma, who has 80 acres.
Baker said he's spent the past 10 years growing, testing and coming up with his own varieties of hemp and is now looking to industrialize it for the marketplace.
He said the Quinte area and Northumberland region provides an ideal soil/climate resource on which to develop the hemp biomass sector.
As well, he said the regions' proximity to the Quebec-Ontario market corridor and the eastern seaboard of the United States provides an additional competitive advantage.
Baker said he will need at least 17,000 acres of land to produce hemp. He plans on contracting hemp production to growers along the 401 corridor.
"This will be an opportunity for Northumberland, Hastings and Prince Edward and Lennox and Addington farmers to grow seeds that we need to plant acreage," he said.
Baker said he believes growing hemp can be as profitable as other crops.
"It's a great opportunity and our farming community can gauge on this ... but it will take some patience on everyone's part."
He is now looking for a location for the bio-refining facility for hemp, adding that it will have to be along the 401 corridor, central to where the hemp is grown.
"We hope to be ordering equipment in three months and start production 12 to 15 months from today," Baker said. "We will have to contract some acreage this year in anticipation of the plant being up in 12 months."
He added the success of the operation may mean adding additional bio-refining facilities in the future.
"The whole project will be in the neighbourhood of $20 million," Baker said. "This $2-million private investment is a giant step ahead."
He said the possibilities are endless, considering that the global renewable and bioproducts industry is expected to exceed $125 billion in revenues by 2010.
Baker credits several organizations for contributing to his success, including the Trenval Business Development Corporation, Northumberland Community Futures Development Corporation and the Easter Lake Ontario Innovation Network.
Gerrit DeBruyn, Trenval's executive director, accompanied Baker to Toronto Wednesday and said the investment is like a dream come true.
"Trenval had been working with John probably seven years or so ago when he had this dream of utilizing hemp in various products and we have been supporting his mission by providing him some funding ... we're delighted today that after years of patience and perseverance on John's part that we're able to see a major breakthrough here," he said.
DeBruyn said Trenval will assist Baker in taking the next step in opening his bio-refining facility.
"It's green energy and obviously we're very supportive of that," he said.
http://www.intelligencer.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1398812
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
DEA denied Carl Olsen marijuana rescheduling request (enclosed)
U.S. Department of Justice
Drug Enforcement Administration
Office of the Deputy Administrator
Washington, D.C. 20537
December 19, 2008
Mr. Carl Olsen
130 E Aurora Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50313-3654
Dear Mr. Olsen:
On May 12,2008, you petitioned the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to initiate rulemaking proceedings under the rescheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). You requested that DEA remove marijuana from schedule I of the CSA based on your assertion that the federal definition for a schedule I controlled substance no longer applies to it. You contend that federal drug law gives states the authority to determine accepted medical use and that marijuana, therefore, has a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" because 12 states have passed laws relating to the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Based on these same assertions, on August 5, 2008, you filed a "Notice and Deadline to Cease and Desist Illegal Enforcement of Fraudulant [sic] Marijuana Regulation." The notice states that the DEA must "cease and desist enforcement of the illegal regulation of marijuana" within 30 days or you will file a federal civil injunction.
The Deputy Administrator finds, for the reasons stated herein, that the grounds upon which you rely are not sufficient to justify the initiation of proceedings for the removal of marijuana from schedule I ofthe CSA. Accordingly, your petition is hereby denied. For the same reasons, the Deputy Administrator finds that the notice to cease and desist also lacks merit. Accordingly, to the extent you seek action based on this filing, this request also is hereby denied.
Legal Background
When the CSA was created, Congress specified the initial scheduling of controlled substances and the criteria by which controlled substances could be rescheduled. 21 U.S.C. 811-812 (2008). Congress placed marijuana into schedule I. See Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-513, 202(c), schedule I (c)(10), 84 Stat. 1247.
The Attorney General "may by rule" transfer a drug or other substance between schedules if he finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse and makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of Section 812 for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed. 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(I). In order for a substance to be placed in schedule I, the Attorney General must find that:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse;
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1)(A)-(C). To be classified in one of the other schedules (II through V), a drug of abuse must have a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." [Footnote 1]
Footnote 1: A controlled substance in schedule II must have either "a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions." 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(2)(B); see also Notice of Denial of Petition, 66 Fed. Reg. 20,038, 20,038 (Apr. 18,2001) ("Congress established only one schedule - schedule I - for drugs of abuse with 'no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States' and a 'lack of accepted safety for use ... under medical supervision.'").
The CSA provides that, in making any rescheduling determination, the Attorney General shall consider the following eight factors:
(1) The drug's 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;
(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) The drug's psychic or physiological dependence liability; and
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under the CSA.
21 U.S.C. 811(c). The Attorney General has delegated this authority to the Administrator of DEA, who has redelegated it to the Deputy Administrator. See 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) & 0.104, Appendix to Subpart R, sec. 12 (2008).
The CSA further provides that, before initiating proceedings to reschedule a drug, the Administrator must gather the necessary data and request from the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendations as to whether the controlled substance should be rescheduled as the petitioner proposes. 21 U.S.C. 811(b); 21 C.F.R. 130S.43(d); Gettman v. DEA, 290 F.3d 430, 432 (D.C. Cir. 2002). In making such evaluation and recommendations, the Secretary must consider the factors listed in paragraphs (2), (3), (6), (7), and (8) above, and any scientific or medical considerations involved in paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) above. 21 U.S.C. 811(b). The Secretary has delegated this function to the Assistant Secretary for Health. [Footnote 2] If the Administrator determines that the evaluations and recommendations of the Assistant Secretary and "all other relevant data" constitute substantial evidence that the drug that is the subject of the petition should be subjected to lesser control or removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings to reschedule the drug or remove it from the schedules as the evidence dictates. 21 U.S.C. 811(b); 21 C.F.R. 1308.43(e).
Footnote 2: As set forth in a memorandum of understanding entered into by HHS, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), FDA acts as the lead agency within HHS in carrying out the Secretary's scheduling responsibilities under the CSA, with the concurrence of NIDA. Memorandum of Understanding with the Nat'l Inst. on Drug Abuse, 50 Fed. Reg. 9,518 (Mar. 8, 1985).
Basis for Denial of Your Petition and Notice
Your petition and notice rest on your contention that federal drug law gives states the authority to determine, for purposes of the CSA, whether a drug has a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," and that marijuana has such a currently accepted medical use because 12 states have passed laws relating to the use of marijuana for medical purposes. See Carl Olsen Petition for Marijuana Rescheduling (May 12, 200S) ("Pet."); Carl Olsen Memorandum of Law in Support ofPetition for Marijuana Rescheduling (May 25, 200S) ("Mem."); Notice and Deadline to Cease and Desist Illegal Enforcement of Fraudulant [sic] Marijuana Regulation (Aug. 5, 200S) ("Notice"). [Footnote 3] For the following reasons, your contention is not in accordance with law.
Footnote 3: You do not, in this petition or notice, dispute whether marijuana meets the frrst criterion for schedule I or schedule II, i.e., that the substance has a high potential for abuse. Nor do you purport to present new scientific or medical evidence - beyond that previously considered by DEA in its prior denial of another petition to reschedule marijuana, see Notice of Denial of Petition, 66 Fed. Reg. at 20,038 - regarding whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use. See generally Pet.; Mem.; Notice. Finally, you do not raise any religious use arguments such as those you previously raised and recently had rejected in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See Olsen v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2008) (rejecting Olsen's religious use claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and rejecting Olsen's free exercise and equal protection claims).
A. The CSA's Statutory Scheme
The CSA's statutory scheme disproves your contention that federal drug law gives states the authority to determine whether a drug has a "currently accepted medical use" within the meaning ofthe CSA. You rely on Section 903 ofthe CSA, see Pet. at 2; Mem. at 16; Notice at 1, which provides that: "No provision ofthis subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part ofthe Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any state law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together." 21 U.S.C. 903 (2008).
As a threshold matter, 21 U.S.C. 903 merely reaffirms, for purposes of the CSA, what is inherent in the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution: that any state law that actually conflicts with federal law is preempted by federal law and therefore invalid under the supremacy clause. [Footnote 4] Section 903 also provides that, so long as the states do not enact a law relating to controlled substances that creates a positive conflict with the CSA, the states are free to enact laws regulating controlled substances which would otherwise be within their authority that will operate alongside the CSA. Thus, it would be antithetical to the text of section 903 to cite it for the proposition that state controlled substance laws that conflict with the CSA can override or frustrate the purposes of the CSA. As the Supreme Court stated in the context of marijuana possession and cultivation taking place in purported compliance with California law: "The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail." [Footnote 5]
Footnote 4: See, e.g., California Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 280-281 (1987).
Footnote 5: Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 29 (2005).
Furthermore, the CSA plainly does not assign to the states the authority to make findings relevant to CSA scheduling determinations. Rather, the CSA expressly delegates the task of making such findings - including whether a substance has any currently accepted medical use - to the Attorney General. 21 U.S.C. 811(a). The CSA also expressly tasks the Secretary of HHS to provide a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendations to inform the Attorney General's findings. 21 U.S.C. 811 (b). [Footnote 6] That Congress explicitly provided scheduling authority to these two federal entities further precludes your argument that Section 903 reserves this authority to the states.
Footnote 6: DEA regulations echo this statutory scheme. See 21 C.F.R. 1308.43.
In addition, the CSA explicitly provides that in making a scheduling determination, the Attorney General shall consider the following eight factors:
(1) The drug's 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;
(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) The drug's psychic or physiological dependence liability; and
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under the CSA.
21 U.S.C. 811(c). These factors do not include state law. The CSA's statutory text evidences that Congress did not envision such a role for state law in establishing the schedules of controlled substances under the CSA. [Footnote 7]
Footnote 7: DEA previously conducted lengthy proceedings to review a petition to reschedule marijuana from 1995 through 2001. After requesting and reviewing a scientific and medical evaluation from HHS, the Administrator denied the petition on the grounds that marijuana has no currently accepted medical use and because it is not safe for use even under medical supervision. Notice of Denial of Petition, 66 Fed. Reg. at 20,038, pet. for review dismissed, Gettman, 290 F.3d at 436. As you note, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed a petition with the DEA in October 2002 discussing scientific and medical findings relating to the medical use of marijuana. That petition remains pending.
B. Gonzales v. Oregon and Other Recent Supreme Court Cases
You further rely on Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). See Pet. at 2-3; Mem. at 13; Notice at 4. This reliance also is misplaced. You argue that Oregon supports your petition by requiring federal authorities to defer to states' determinations on issues of medical practice. To the contrary, Oregon affirms the core federal authority of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of HHS, as to drug scheduling.
In Oregon, the United States Supreme Court considered the Attorney General's Interpretive Rule prohibiting doctors from prescribing controlled substances for use in physician-assisted suicide under an Oregon state law that permitted the procedure. Id. at 248. The Court held that the Rule was not entitled to deference because it was not issued pursuant to an explicit delegation of rule making authority. Id. at 258-69. The Court did not find the Attorney General's interpretation persuasive and invalidated the Rule because the CSA "manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally." Id. at 270.
In so holding, however, the Court repeatedly cited by contrast - as a valid and explicit delegation of authority - the Attorney General's power as to drug scheduling. [Footnote 8] The Court observed that, by the text of the CSA itself, Congress had delegated "control" authority to the Attorney General to add, remove, or reschedule substances. [Footenote 9] The Court further cited the CSA's detailed scheduling procedures, including the requirement to request a scientific and medical evaluation by the Secretary of HHS. Id. at 260. Oregon thus confirmed that, in contrast to the invalidated Rule, drug scheduling authority and the corresponding scheduling procedures are an appropriate exercise of the federal power granted in the CSA.
Footnote 8: See Oregon, 546 U.S. at 262 ("It would be anomalous for Congress to have painstakingly described the Attorney General's limited authority to ... schedule a single drug, but to have given him, just by implication, authority to declare an entire class of activity outside 'the course of professional practice' and therefore a criminal violation of the CSA.").
Footnote 9: The Court noted that the term "control" is a term of art in the CSA, meaning to "add a drug or other substance ... to a schedule ... whether by transfer from another schedule or otherwise." Oregon, 546 U.S. at 260 (quoting 21 U.S.C. 802(5)).
The Court also approvingly cited the CSA's explicit allocation of medical judgments in the scheduling context - not, as you argue, to states - but rather, to the Secretary: "The CSA allocates decision making powers among statutory actors so that medical judgments, if they are to be decided at the federal level and for the limited objects of the statute, are placed in the hands of the Secretary." Id. at 265. Whereas the invalidated Rule involved an overly broad assertion of authority, the drug scheduling context exemplified the "CSA's consistent delegation of medical judgments to the Secretary and its otherwise careful allocation of powers." Id. at 272. Thus, far from giving authority to the states, Oregon instead confirms the Attorney General's explicit authority, in conjunction with the Secretary's recommendations on scientific and medical matters, as to drug scheduling.
The two other recent Supreme Court cases you cite, see Mem. at 15-16; Notice at 3, likewise affirmed the primacy of federal law over state marijuana laws. In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001) ("OCBC"), the Court held that no medical necessity exception existed to the CSA's prohibition on manufacturing and distributing marijuana. Notwithstanding California state law authorizing possession and cultivation of marijuana for claimed medical purposes, Congress' clear determination that all schedule I controlled substances, including marijuana, have no currently accepted medical use forecloses any argument as to whether such drugs can be dispensed and prescribed for medical use. Id. at 493. The Court in OCBC was explicit in stating that "for purposes of the [CSA], marijuana has 'no currently accepted medical use' at all. 812." Id. at 491. Similarly, in Raich, 545 U.S. 1, the Court held that, even in a state that had legalized marijuana activity for claimed medical use, Congress' federal commerce clause power extended to prohibit purportedly intrastate cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with the state law. "Limiting the activity to marijuana possession and cultivation 'in accordance with state law' cannot serve to place respondents' activities beyond congressional reach." Id. at 29.
C. Whether A Drug Has A "Currently Accepted Medical Use in Treatment in the United States"
Your argument that there is no federal definition of"currently accepted medical use" also fails. In order to determine whether a substance has a "currently accepted medical use," the Administrator applies a five-part test:
1) The drug's chemistry must be known and reproducible;
2) There must be adequate safety studies;
3) There must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;
4) The drug must be accepted by qualified experts; and
5) The scientific evidence must be widely available.
Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("ACT II"). This test was approved by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a reasonable interpretation of the statutory language. See Id. at 1134-5, 1137 (approving the Administrator's Final Order applying these five criteria); see also Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ("ACT I"). Significantly, with respect to your petition, this test includes no reference to state law.
D. Other Arguments as to Currently Accepted Medical Use
A substantial portion of the remainder of your memorandum in support of your current petition and your notice merely rehash arguments as to "currently accepted medical use" that you unsuccessfully asserted when you petitioned DEA to reschedule marijuana in 1992 and when you sought review of DEA's denial of that petition by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals, in declining your petition for review in a per curiam order issued October 3, 1996, stated that the arguments you raised "occasion no need for an opinion." Olsen v. DEA, No. 94-1605, 1996 WL 590870 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 3, 1996). It is, therefore, unnecessary for DEA to revisit these same arguments yet again in 2008.
Nevertheless, to ensure completeness of the record, we briefly address and dismiss these contentions. First, you discuss again at length litigation relating to the 1972 petition to reschedule marijuana filed by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), see Mem. at 7-9, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's decision in Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1987). See Mem. at 9-12; Notice at 2. These cases are inapposite, however, as they were superseded by the subsequent ACT I and ACT II decisions approving the present five-factor test. See ACT II, 15 F.3d at 1133 (noting "[t]he petition to reschedule marijuana was first filed [by NORML] in 1972 and has been before this court on four prior occasions ...."); ACT I, 930 F.2d at 939-40 (explicitly distinguishing Grinspoon). [Footnote l0]
Footnote 10: The Grinspoon court never considered the present five-part test, but rather invalidated only a 1986 version of the "currently accepted medical use" test that depended on FDA approval. 828 F.2d at 884. On administrative remand, the test evolved before being replaced with the present five-part test approved in ACT I and ACT II. See Schedules of Controlled Substances, 53 Fed. Reg. 5,156, 5,157 (Feb. 22,1988) (formulating alternative eight-factor test following Grinspoon remand); Marijuana Scheduling Petition; Denial of Petition, 54 Fed. Reg. 53,767, 53,783 (Dec. 29, 1989) (applying eight-factor test); Marijuana Scheduling Petition; Denial of Petition; Remand, 57 Fed. Reg. 10,499, 10,506 (Mar. 26, 1992) (discarding eight-factor test and applying present five-part test). As to possible duplication of criteria between the 1986 version of the test Grinspoon rejected and the present test, the ACT I court explicitly distinguished Grinspoon, stating that the First Circuit "never suggested the DEA Administrator was foreclosed from incorporating and relying on those standards employed by the FDA that are relevant to the pharmaceutical qualities of the drug." 930 F.2d at 939.
Second, you reiterate arguments regarding the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, contending that it was modified in 1991 to allow for the medical use of the pharmaceutically pure primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, delta-9-THC, and that this ingredient has been rescheduled twice, from schedule I to schedule III. Mem. at 4. You further contend that plants are not typically scheduled in schedules more restrictive than the psychoactive substances that are obtained from them. Mem. at 5. Under the CSA, however, the regulation of chemicals and the plant material are distinct from each other: drugs or other substances are treated and classified differently, according to the enumerated statutory criteria. 21 U.S.C. 812(b); see also Final Order, In the Matter of Petition of Carl Eric Olsen (May 16, 1994) (rejecting petition to reschedule marijuana); Olsen, 1996 WL 590870, at *1 (denying Olsen's petition for review). Whether marijuana is a source of delta-9-THC is irrelevant to the status of marijuana under the CSA.
None of your remaining arguments as to whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use have merit. [Footnote 11] First, you reference a portion of the 1970 legislative history of the CSA relating to appointment of a commission that issued a report on marijuana in 1972, citing a portion of the 1972 report itself. See Mem. at 2-3. In the more than 36 years that have elapsed since these materials were published, however, numerous individuals and marijuana legalization advocates have pointed to the 1972 marijuana report to justify CSA violations involving marijuana, to challenge the constitutionality of the federal marijuana laws, or, as with your latest petition, to argue that marijuana should be deemed to have medical efficacy for purposes of the CSA. [Footnote 12] None of these efforts have ever succeeded for the simple reason that Congress took no action to alter the CSA in any respect as a result of the 1972 report. The fact that Congress has not rescheduled marijuana speaks for itself.
Footnote 11: Your notice in particular exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the "currently accepted medical use" standard. You argue that the DEA should have rescheduled marijuana in 1996 as soon as one state (California) passed legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana, citing Raich, OCBC, and Grinspoon. Notice at 2-3. But none of these cases support your argument. First, as you acknowledge, see Notice at 3, Raich noted that Congress classified marijuana in schedule I, that is, "Congress expressly found that [marijuana] has no acceptable medical uses." 545 U.S. at 27. Second, you ignore that OCBC specifically rejected an exception for the medical use of marijuana on the basis that Congress, and not the Attorney General, had placed marijuana in schedule I. The Court held:
It is clear from the text of the [CSA] that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception .... The statute ... includes no exception at all for any medical use of marijuana. Unwilling to view this omission as an accident, and unable in any event to override a legislative determination manifest in a statute, we reject the [plaintiff's] argument.
532 U.S. at 493. Third, you misstate the holding of Grinspoon. That court did not say, as you argue, that a controlled substance cannot be scheduled in schedule I if it has accepted medical use anywhere in the United States; rather, it said only that "Congress did not intend .. to require a fmding of recognized medical use in every state." 828 F.2d at 886 (emphasis added).
Footnote 12: See, e.g., United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 1998); NORML v. Bell, 488 F. Supp. 123, 128 (D.D.C. 1980); United States v. LaFroscia, 354 F. Supp. 1338, 1340 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).
You also observe that the federal government has supplied marijuana to medical patients through a program of compassionate use. Mem. at 5-6 (citing Kuromiya v. United States, 78 F. Supp. 2d 367 (E.D. Pa. 1999)). The existence of this exception is not a ground for rescheduling. As the federal district court held in Kuromiya, the government's decision to continue the program at all was a "means of balancing" the interests of those who had relied on the drug with the government's desire to avoid distributing marijuana. 78 F. Supp. 2d at 370-71. You further claim that one participant's primary care doctor has retired, and that she is not able to find another doctor willing to prescribe marijuana because of the stigma associated with prescribing a schedule I substance. Mem. at 6. You have not provided any evidence to support this contention. Even if you had, one individual's potential hardship to participate in a compassionate use program is not adequate legal grounds for rescheduling. See 21 U.S.C. 811(c).
Finally, you argue that the "DEA's own Administrative Law Judge [ALJ Young] has already determined that marijuana is safe for use under medical supervision." Olsen Petition at 4. As you acknowledge, however, see Pet. at 3, the DEA Administrator unambiguously rejected ALJ Young's determination in In re Marijuana Rescheduling, DEA Dkt. No. 86-22 (Sept. 6, 1998) (attached as Ex. 1 to Pet.). The D.C. Circuit later affirmed the DEA's final order (Mar. 26, 1992) in ACT II, 15 F.3d at 1135 (denying petition to review DEA's final order declining to reschedule marijuana). Nor is it accurate that the Administrator's rejection of ALJ Young's determination depended on the fact that no state had accepted the use of marijuana for medical purposes. In fact, ALJ Young's opinion had noted the efforts of a number of states to pass such legislation. See, e.g., In re Marijuana Rescheduling, DEA Dkt. No. 86-22, 21,22,28. In any case, for the reasons set forth in detail above, the existence of state legislation is not relevant to a scheduling determination.
Conclusion
Accordingly, there is no statutory basis for DEA to grant your petition to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana. Nor is there any basis to initiate any action based on your August 5th notice.
The Petitioner's request is denied.
Sincerely,
Michele M. Leonhart
Deputy Administrator
Drug Enforcement Administration
Office of the Deputy Administrator
Washington, D.C. 20537
December 19, 2008
Mr. Carl Olsen
130 E Aurora Avenue
Des Moines, Iowa 50313-3654
Dear Mr. Olsen:
On May 12,2008, you petitioned the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to initiate rulemaking proceedings under the rescheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). You requested that DEA remove marijuana from schedule I of the CSA based on your assertion that the federal definition for a schedule I controlled substance no longer applies to it. You contend that federal drug law gives states the authority to determine accepted medical use and that marijuana, therefore, has a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" because 12 states have passed laws relating to the use of marijuana for medical purposes. Based on these same assertions, on August 5, 2008, you filed a "Notice and Deadline to Cease and Desist Illegal Enforcement of Fraudulant [sic] Marijuana Regulation." The notice states that the DEA must "cease and desist enforcement of the illegal regulation of marijuana" within 30 days or you will file a federal civil injunction.
The Deputy Administrator finds, for the reasons stated herein, that the grounds upon which you rely are not sufficient to justify the initiation of proceedings for the removal of marijuana from schedule I ofthe CSA. Accordingly, your petition is hereby denied. For the same reasons, the Deputy Administrator finds that the notice to cease and desist also lacks merit. Accordingly, to the extent you seek action based on this filing, this request also is hereby denied.
Legal Background
When the CSA was created, Congress specified the initial scheduling of controlled substances and the criteria by which controlled substances could be rescheduled. 21 U.S.C. 811-812 (2008). Congress placed marijuana into schedule I. See Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. 91-513, 202(c), schedule I (c)(10), 84 Stat. 1247.
The Attorney General "may by rule" transfer a drug or other substance between schedules if he finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse and makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of Section 812 for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed. 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(I). In order for a substance to be placed in schedule I, the Attorney General must find that:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse;
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; and
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1)(A)-(C). To be classified in one of the other schedules (II through V), a drug of abuse must have a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." [Footnote 1]
Footnote 1: A controlled substance in schedule II must have either "a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions." 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(2)(B); see also Notice of Denial of Petition, 66 Fed. Reg. 20,038, 20,038 (Apr. 18,2001) ("Congress established only one schedule - schedule I - for drugs of abuse with 'no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States' and a 'lack of accepted safety for use ... under medical supervision.'").
The CSA provides that, in making any rescheduling determination, the Attorney General shall consider the following eight factors:
(1) The drug's 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;
(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) The drug's psychic or physiological dependence liability; and
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under the CSA.
21 U.S.C. 811(c). The Attorney General has delegated this authority to the Administrator of DEA, who has redelegated it to the Deputy Administrator. See 28 C.F.R. 0.100(b) & 0.104, Appendix to Subpart R, sec. 12 (2008).
The CSA further provides that, before initiating proceedings to reschedule a drug, the Administrator must gather the necessary data and request from the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendations as to whether the controlled substance should be rescheduled as the petitioner proposes. 21 U.S.C. 811(b); 21 C.F.R. 130S.43(d); Gettman v. DEA, 290 F.3d 430, 432 (D.C. Cir. 2002). In making such evaluation and recommendations, the Secretary must consider the factors listed in paragraphs (2), (3), (6), (7), and (8) above, and any scientific or medical considerations involved in paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) above. 21 U.S.C. 811(b). The Secretary has delegated this function to the Assistant Secretary for Health. [Footnote 2] If the Administrator determines that the evaluations and recommendations of the Assistant Secretary and "all other relevant data" constitute substantial evidence that the drug that is the subject of the petition should be subjected to lesser control or removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings to reschedule the drug or remove it from the schedules as the evidence dictates. 21 U.S.C. 811(b); 21 C.F.R. 1308.43(e).
Footnote 2: As set forth in a memorandum of understanding entered into by HHS, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), FDA acts as the lead agency within HHS in carrying out the Secretary's scheduling responsibilities under the CSA, with the concurrence of NIDA. Memorandum of Understanding with the Nat'l Inst. on Drug Abuse, 50 Fed. Reg. 9,518 (Mar. 8, 1985).
Basis for Denial of Your Petition and Notice
Your petition and notice rest on your contention that federal drug law gives states the authority to determine, for purposes of the CSA, whether a drug has a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," and that marijuana has such a currently accepted medical use because 12 states have passed laws relating to the use of marijuana for medical purposes. See Carl Olsen Petition for Marijuana Rescheduling (May 12, 200S) ("Pet."); Carl Olsen Memorandum of Law in Support ofPetition for Marijuana Rescheduling (May 25, 200S) ("Mem."); Notice and Deadline to Cease and Desist Illegal Enforcement of Fraudulant [sic] Marijuana Regulation (Aug. 5, 200S) ("Notice"). [Footnote 3] For the following reasons, your contention is not in accordance with law.
Footnote 3: You do not, in this petition or notice, dispute whether marijuana meets the frrst criterion for schedule I or schedule II, i.e., that the substance has a high potential for abuse. Nor do you purport to present new scientific or medical evidence - beyond that previously considered by DEA in its prior denial of another petition to reschedule marijuana, see Notice of Denial of Petition, 66 Fed. Reg. at 20,038 - regarding whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use. See generally Pet.; Mem.; Notice. Finally, you do not raise any religious use arguments such as those you previously raised and recently had rejected in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. See Olsen v. Mukasey, 541 F.3d 827 (8th Cir. 2008) (rejecting Olsen's religious use claims under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and rejecting Olsen's free exercise and equal protection claims).
A. The CSA's Statutory Scheme
The CSA's statutory scheme disproves your contention that federal drug law gives states the authority to determine whether a drug has a "currently accepted medical use" within the meaning ofthe CSA. You rely on Section 903 ofthe CSA, see Pet. at 2; Mem. at 16; Notice at 1, which provides that: "No provision ofthis subchapter shall be construed as indicating an intent on the part ofthe Congress to occupy the field in which that provision operates, including criminal penalties, to the exclusion of any state law on the same subject matter which would otherwise be within the authority of the State, unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this subchapter and that State law so that the two cannot consistently stand together." 21 U.S.C. 903 (2008).
As a threshold matter, 21 U.S.C. 903 merely reaffirms, for purposes of the CSA, what is inherent in the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution: that any state law that actually conflicts with federal law is preempted by federal law and therefore invalid under the supremacy clause. [Footnote 4] Section 903 also provides that, so long as the states do not enact a law relating to controlled substances that creates a positive conflict with the CSA, the states are free to enact laws regulating controlled substances which would otherwise be within their authority that will operate alongside the CSA. Thus, it would be antithetical to the text of section 903 to cite it for the proposition that state controlled substance laws that conflict with the CSA can override or frustrate the purposes of the CSA. As the Supreme Court stated in the context of marijuana possession and cultivation taking place in purported compliance with California law: "The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail." [Footnote 5]
Footnote 4: See, e.g., California Fed. Sav. & Loan Assoc. v. Guerra, 479 U.S. 272, 280-281 (1987).
Footnote 5: Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 29 (2005).
Furthermore, the CSA plainly does not assign to the states the authority to make findings relevant to CSA scheduling determinations. Rather, the CSA expressly delegates the task of making such findings - including whether a substance has any currently accepted medical use - to the Attorney General. 21 U.S.C. 811(a). The CSA also expressly tasks the Secretary of HHS to provide a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendations to inform the Attorney General's findings. 21 U.S.C. 811 (b). [Footnote 6] That Congress explicitly provided scheduling authority to these two federal entities further precludes your argument that Section 903 reserves this authority to the states.
Footnote 6: DEA regulations echo this statutory scheme. See 21 C.F.R. 1308.43.
In addition, the CSA explicitly provides that in making a scheduling determination, the Attorney General shall consider the following eight factors:
(1) The drug's 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;
(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) The drug's psychic or physiological dependence liability; and
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under the CSA.
21 U.S.C. 811(c). These factors do not include state law. The CSA's statutory text evidences that Congress did not envision such a role for state law in establishing the schedules of controlled substances under the CSA. [Footnote 7]
Footnote 7: DEA previously conducted lengthy proceedings to review a petition to reschedule marijuana from 1995 through 2001. After requesting and reviewing a scientific and medical evaluation from HHS, the Administrator denied the petition on the grounds that marijuana has no currently accepted medical use and because it is not safe for use even under medical supervision. Notice of Denial of Petition, 66 Fed. Reg. at 20,038, pet. for review dismissed, Gettman, 290 F.3d at 436. As you note, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed a petition with the DEA in October 2002 discussing scientific and medical findings relating to the medical use of marijuana. That petition remains pending.
B. Gonzales v. Oregon and Other Recent Supreme Court Cases
You further rely on Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). See Pet. at 2-3; Mem. at 13; Notice at 4. This reliance also is misplaced. You argue that Oregon supports your petition by requiring federal authorities to defer to states' determinations on issues of medical practice. To the contrary, Oregon affirms the core federal authority of the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of HHS, as to drug scheduling.
In Oregon, the United States Supreme Court considered the Attorney General's Interpretive Rule prohibiting doctors from prescribing controlled substances for use in physician-assisted suicide under an Oregon state law that permitted the procedure. Id. at 248. The Court held that the Rule was not entitled to deference because it was not issued pursuant to an explicit delegation of rule making authority. Id. at 258-69. The Court did not find the Attorney General's interpretation persuasive and invalidated the Rule because the CSA "manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally." Id. at 270.
In so holding, however, the Court repeatedly cited by contrast - as a valid and explicit delegation of authority - the Attorney General's power as to drug scheduling. [Footnote 8] The Court observed that, by the text of the CSA itself, Congress had delegated "control" authority to the Attorney General to add, remove, or reschedule substances. [Footenote 9] The Court further cited the CSA's detailed scheduling procedures, including the requirement to request a scientific and medical evaluation by the Secretary of HHS. Id. at 260. Oregon thus confirmed that, in contrast to the invalidated Rule, drug scheduling authority and the corresponding scheduling procedures are an appropriate exercise of the federal power granted in the CSA.
Footnote 8: See Oregon, 546 U.S. at 262 ("It would be anomalous for Congress to have painstakingly described the Attorney General's limited authority to ... schedule a single drug, but to have given him, just by implication, authority to declare an entire class of activity outside 'the course of professional practice' and therefore a criminal violation of the CSA.").
Footnote 9: The Court noted that the term "control" is a term of art in the CSA, meaning to "add a drug or other substance ... to a schedule ... whether by transfer from another schedule or otherwise." Oregon, 546 U.S. at 260 (quoting 21 U.S.C. 802(5)).
The Court also approvingly cited the CSA's explicit allocation of medical judgments in the scheduling context - not, as you argue, to states - but rather, to the Secretary: "The CSA allocates decision making powers among statutory actors so that medical judgments, if they are to be decided at the federal level and for the limited objects of the statute, are placed in the hands of the Secretary." Id. at 265. Whereas the invalidated Rule involved an overly broad assertion of authority, the drug scheduling context exemplified the "CSA's consistent delegation of medical judgments to the Secretary and its otherwise careful allocation of powers." Id. at 272. Thus, far from giving authority to the states, Oregon instead confirms the Attorney General's explicit authority, in conjunction with the Secretary's recommendations on scientific and medical matters, as to drug scheduling.
The two other recent Supreme Court cases you cite, see Mem. at 15-16; Notice at 3, likewise affirmed the primacy of federal law over state marijuana laws. In United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001) ("OCBC"), the Court held that no medical necessity exception existed to the CSA's prohibition on manufacturing and distributing marijuana. Notwithstanding California state law authorizing possession and cultivation of marijuana for claimed medical purposes, Congress' clear determination that all schedule I controlled substances, including marijuana, have no currently accepted medical use forecloses any argument as to whether such drugs can be dispensed and prescribed for medical use. Id. at 493. The Court in OCBC was explicit in stating that "for purposes of the [CSA], marijuana has 'no currently accepted medical use' at all. 812." Id. at 491. Similarly, in Raich, 545 U.S. 1, the Court held that, even in a state that had legalized marijuana activity for claimed medical use, Congress' federal commerce clause power extended to prohibit purportedly intrastate cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with the state law. "Limiting the activity to marijuana possession and cultivation 'in accordance with state law' cannot serve to place respondents' activities beyond congressional reach." Id. at 29.
C. Whether A Drug Has A "Currently Accepted Medical Use in Treatment in the United States"
Your argument that there is no federal definition of"currently accepted medical use" also fails. In order to determine whether a substance has a "currently accepted medical use," the Administrator applies a five-part test:
1) The drug's chemistry must be known and reproducible;
2) There must be adequate safety studies;
3) There must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;
4) The drug must be accepted by qualified experts; and
5) The scientific evidence must be widely available.
Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1994) ("ACT II"). This test was approved by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit as a reasonable interpretation of the statutory language. See Id. at 1134-5, 1137 (approving the Administrator's Final Order applying these five criteria); see also Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936, 939 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ("ACT I"). Significantly, with respect to your petition, this test includes no reference to state law.
D. Other Arguments as to Currently Accepted Medical Use
A substantial portion of the remainder of your memorandum in support of your current petition and your notice merely rehash arguments as to "currently accepted medical use" that you unsuccessfully asserted when you petitioned DEA to reschedule marijuana in 1992 and when you sought review of DEA's denial of that petition by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The United States Court of Appeals, in declining your petition for review in a per curiam order issued October 3, 1996, stated that the arguments you raised "occasion no need for an opinion." Olsen v. DEA, No. 94-1605, 1996 WL 590870 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 3, 1996). It is, therefore, unnecessary for DEA to revisit these same arguments yet again in 2008.
Nevertheless, to ensure completeness of the record, we briefly address and dismiss these contentions. First, you discuss again at length litigation relating to the 1972 petition to reschedule marijuana filed by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), see Mem. at 7-9, and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's decision in Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1987). See Mem. at 9-12; Notice at 2. These cases are inapposite, however, as they were superseded by the subsequent ACT I and ACT II decisions approving the present five-factor test. See ACT II, 15 F.3d at 1133 (noting "[t]he petition to reschedule marijuana was first filed [by NORML] in 1972 and has been before this court on four prior occasions ...."); ACT I, 930 F.2d at 939-40 (explicitly distinguishing Grinspoon). [Footnote l0]
Footnote 10: The Grinspoon court never considered the present five-part test, but rather invalidated only a 1986 version of the "currently accepted medical use" test that depended on FDA approval. 828 F.2d at 884. On administrative remand, the test evolved before being replaced with the present five-part test approved in ACT I and ACT II. See Schedules of Controlled Substances, 53 Fed. Reg. 5,156, 5,157 (Feb. 22,1988) (formulating alternative eight-factor test following Grinspoon remand); Marijuana Scheduling Petition; Denial of Petition, 54 Fed. Reg. 53,767, 53,783 (Dec. 29, 1989) (applying eight-factor test); Marijuana Scheduling Petition; Denial of Petition; Remand, 57 Fed. Reg. 10,499, 10,506 (Mar. 26, 1992) (discarding eight-factor test and applying present five-part test). As to possible duplication of criteria between the 1986 version of the test Grinspoon rejected and the present test, the ACT I court explicitly distinguished Grinspoon, stating that the First Circuit "never suggested the DEA Administrator was foreclosed from incorporating and relying on those standards employed by the FDA that are relevant to the pharmaceutical qualities of the drug." 930 F.2d at 939.
Second, you reiterate arguments regarding the Convention on Psychotropic Substances, contending that it was modified in 1991 to allow for the medical use of the pharmaceutically pure primary psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, delta-9-THC, and that this ingredient has been rescheduled twice, from schedule I to schedule III. Mem. at 4. You further contend that plants are not typically scheduled in schedules more restrictive than the psychoactive substances that are obtained from them. Mem. at 5. Under the CSA, however, the regulation of chemicals and the plant material are distinct from each other: drugs or other substances are treated and classified differently, according to the enumerated statutory criteria. 21 U.S.C. 812(b); see also Final Order, In the Matter of Petition of Carl Eric Olsen (May 16, 1994) (rejecting petition to reschedule marijuana); Olsen, 1996 WL 590870, at *1 (denying Olsen's petition for review). Whether marijuana is a source of delta-9-THC is irrelevant to the status of marijuana under the CSA.
None of your remaining arguments as to whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use have merit. [Footnote 11] First, you reference a portion of the 1970 legislative history of the CSA relating to appointment of a commission that issued a report on marijuana in 1972, citing a portion of the 1972 report itself. See Mem. at 2-3. In the more than 36 years that have elapsed since these materials were published, however, numerous individuals and marijuana legalization advocates have pointed to the 1972 marijuana report to justify CSA violations involving marijuana, to challenge the constitutionality of the federal marijuana laws, or, as with your latest petition, to argue that marijuana should be deemed to have medical efficacy for purposes of the CSA. [Footnote 12] None of these efforts have ever succeeded for the simple reason that Congress took no action to alter the CSA in any respect as a result of the 1972 report. The fact that Congress has not rescheduled marijuana speaks for itself.
Footnote 11: Your notice in particular exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of the "currently accepted medical use" standard. You argue that the DEA should have rescheduled marijuana in 1996 as soon as one state (California) passed legislation relating to the medical use of marijuana, citing Raich, OCBC, and Grinspoon. Notice at 2-3. But none of these cases support your argument. First, as you acknowledge, see Notice at 3, Raich noted that Congress classified marijuana in schedule I, that is, "Congress expressly found that [marijuana] has no acceptable medical uses." 545 U.S. at 27. Second, you ignore that OCBC specifically rejected an exception for the medical use of marijuana on the basis that Congress, and not the Attorney General, had placed marijuana in schedule I. The Court held:
It is clear from the text of the [CSA] that Congress has made a determination that marijuana has no medical benefits worthy of an exception .... The statute ... includes no exception at all for any medical use of marijuana. Unwilling to view this omission as an accident, and unable in any event to override a legislative determination manifest in a statute, we reject the [plaintiff's] argument.
532 U.S. at 493. Third, you misstate the holding of Grinspoon. That court did not say, as you argue, that a controlled substance cannot be scheduled in schedule I if it has accepted medical use anywhere in the United States; rather, it said only that "Congress did not intend .. to require a fmding of recognized medical use in every state." 828 F.2d at 886 (emphasis added).
Footnote 12: See, e.g., United States v. Cannabis Cultivators Club, 5 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1105 (N.D. Cal. 1998); NORML v. Bell, 488 F. Supp. 123, 128 (D.D.C. 1980); United States v. LaFroscia, 354 F. Supp. 1338, 1340 (S.D.N.Y. 1973).
You also observe that the federal government has supplied marijuana to medical patients through a program of compassionate use. Mem. at 5-6 (citing Kuromiya v. United States, 78 F. Supp. 2d 367 (E.D. Pa. 1999)). The existence of this exception is not a ground for rescheduling. As the federal district court held in Kuromiya, the government's decision to continue the program at all was a "means of balancing" the interests of those who had relied on the drug with the government's desire to avoid distributing marijuana. 78 F. Supp. 2d at 370-71. You further claim that one participant's primary care doctor has retired, and that she is not able to find another doctor willing to prescribe marijuana because of the stigma associated with prescribing a schedule I substance. Mem. at 6. You have not provided any evidence to support this contention. Even if you had, one individual's potential hardship to participate in a compassionate use program is not adequate legal grounds for rescheduling. See 21 U.S.C. 811(c).
Finally, you argue that the "DEA's own Administrative Law Judge [ALJ Young] has already determined that marijuana is safe for use under medical supervision." Olsen Petition at 4. As you acknowledge, however, see Pet. at 3, the DEA Administrator unambiguously rejected ALJ Young's determination in In re Marijuana Rescheduling, DEA Dkt. No. 86-22 (Sept. 6, 1998) (attached as Ex. 1 to Pet.). The D.C. Circuit later affirmed the DEA's final order (Mar. 26, 1992) in ACT II, 15 F.3d at 1135 (denying petition to review DEA's final order declining to reschedule marijuana). Nor is it accurate that the Administrator's rejection of ALJ Young's determination depended on the fact that no state had accepted the use of marijuana for medical purposes. In fact, ALJ Young's opinion had noted the efforts of a number of states to pass such legislation. See, e.g., In re Marijuana Rescheduling, DEA Dkt. No. 86-22, 21,22,28. In any case, for the reasons set forth in detail above, the existence of state legislation is not relevant to a scheduling determination.
Conclusion
Accordingly, there is no statutory basis for DEA to grant your petition to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana. Nor is there any basis to initiate any action based on your August 5th notice.
The Petitioner's request is denied.
Sincerely,
Michele M. Leonhart
Deputy Administrator
MEDICAL MARIJUANA GROUP TO FILE SUIT A Bay Area organization supporting medical marijuana users said it's filing suit against the Solano County
MEDICAL MARIJUANA GROUP TO FILE SUIT
A Bay Area organization supporting medical marijuana users said it's filing suit against the Solano County Board of Supervisors and the county's Health and Social Services Department to force them to implement a state-mandated medical marijuana identification card program.
The group, Americans for Safe Access, announced Monday that it would be seeking a writ of mandate -- basically an order to comply with existing law -- from Solano County Superior Court requiring that the county comply with California's Compassionate Use Act for medical marijuana users.
The suit also lists medical marijuana users identified as Linda Jimenez and "John Doe" as petitioners in the case.
Americans for Safe Access spokesman Kris Hermes reported that California law adopted in 2003 requires all counties in California to offer a marijuana ID card program to assist medical marijuana users and to make it easier for law enforcement to identify legitimate patients and their caregivers.
Since then, Hermes said, 40 of California's counties have put together medical marijuana ID programs, and another 11 are on their way.
The Solano County Board of Supervisors first discussed implementing a medical marijuana identification card program in 2006 but voted not to do so. Americans for Safe Access reported that letters requesting compliance were sent to the Board of Supervisors on Aug. 11 and Oct. 28, 2008, but neither the supervisors nor the county Health and Social Services Department complied.
In a prepared statement issued Monday, Oakland attorney Joe Elford, chief counsel for the group, said it was time for Solano County to comply with state law.
"Solano County cannot simply flaunt its obligation under the law," Elford stated. "This lawsuit is aimed at forcing counties like Solano to fully implement state law and to stop denying medical marijuana patients their legal rights and protections."
Solano County Counsel Dennis Bunting said he had been informed that the group had been preparing to file an action on the medical marijuana ID issue, but had not yet received a copy of the petition for writ of mandamus and could not comment on it.
The Board of Supervisors, he said, is scheduled to revisit the subject during a closed session discussion next Tuesday.
A Bay Area organization supporting medical marijuana users said it's filing suit against the Solano County Board of Supervisors and the county's Health and Social Services Department to force them to implement a state-mandated medical marijuana identification card program.
The group, Americans for Safe Access, announced Monday that it would be seeking a writ of mandate -- basically an order to comply with existing law -- from Solano County Superior Court requiring that the county comply with California's Compassionate Use Act for medical marijuana users.
The suit also lists medical marijuana users identified as Linda Jimenez and "John Doe" as petitioners in the case.
Americans for Safe Access spokesman Kris Hermes reported that California law adopted in 2003 requires all counties in California to offer a marijuana ID card program to assist medical marijuana users and to make it easier for law enforcement to identify legitimate patients and their caregivers.
Since then, Hermes said, 40 of California's counties have put together medical marijuana ID programs, and another 11 are on their way.
The Solano County Board of Supervisors first discussed implementing a medical marijuana identification card program in 2006 but voted not to do so. Americans for Safe Access reported that letters requesting compliance were sent to the Board of Supervisors on Aug. 11 and Oct. 28, 2008, but neither the supervisors nor the county Health and Social Services Department complied.
In a prepared statement issued Monday, Oakland attorney Joe Elford, chief counsel for the group, said it was time for Solano County to comply with state law.
"Solano County cannot simply flaunt its obligation under the law," Elford stated. "This lawsuit is aimed at forcing counties like Solano to fully implement state law and to stop denying medical marijuana patients their legal rights and protections."
Solano County Counsel Dennis Bunting said he had been informed that the group had been preparing to file an action on the medical marijuana ID issue, but had not yet received a copy of the petition for writ of mandamus and could not comment on it.
The Board of Supervisors, he said, is scheduled to revisit the subject during a closed session discussion next Tuesday.
Weed Toilet Paper Has Arrived w Pot Leaves for 420 Cannabis users
Interested in Pot Leaf 420 Cannabis Toilet paper?
Operation Green Acres.
?"Operation Green Acres." anyone else heard about this????
POT GROWER SUES FOR 'LOST PROFIT'
Sheriff Destroyed Confiscated Plants
A Gasquet man currently facing marijuana-sales charges has sued the
Del Norte County Sheriff's Office for "lost profit" after his
marijuana plants were destroyed prior to the dismissal of a previous
marijuana-sales case.
Kirk David Stewart, 45, filed the suit Jan. 2, claiming the Sheriff's
Office should have returned 93 confiscated plants to Stewart -- or at
least the cash amount that could have been made by harvesting them.
The suit states that "Mr. Stewart is requesting the fair market
value" of the 93 marijuana plants that were destroyed.
If there is any truth to the true market value of the marijuana the
(Drug) Task Force say they are taking off the streets, then Mr.
Stewart's plants are worth upwards of several hundred thousand
dollars," said Jon Alexander, Stewart's attorney.
Stewart was arrested in January 2007 after a search warrant was
served on a Crescent City residence on Union Street that he owned.
Authorities confiscated 93 plants along with numerous items used to
grow marijuana, including grow lights, exhaust fans, ballasts and pots.
The suit alleges that Alexander sent a request to the Sheriff's
Office in August 2007 asking for the return of the plants confiscated
from Stewart.
In April 2008, the charges against Stewart were dismissed by the DA's
office because Stewart was found to be in compliance with the
Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Proposition 215), according to the suit.
He brought these certificates saying there were 10 people he was in
care for," said District Attorney Mike Riese.
Equipment, not plants, returned Alexander said Stewart's case should
not have taken as long as it did to be dismissed.
His case did not need to languish for an entire year -- allowing his
marijuana to rot," the lawyer said.
In May 2008, the growing equipment had been returned to Stewart at
the Sheriff's Office, but the plants were not, the suit states.
A copy of the evidence release form included in the lawsuit states,
"unable to release MJ plants -- they were destroyed."
Riese suggested another reason why the Sheriff's Office doesn't ever
give back confiscated drugs after a case is dismissed.
The feds don't recognize Prop. 215," he said. "Under federal law,
marijuana is an illegal substance."
The DA said the Sheriff's Office abides by federal laws and if it
gave drugs back to someone who was exonerated, the office could be
under federal suspicion for drug trafficking.
If they do something with it -- it's part of a distribution chain," said Riese.
New charges pending Stewart now faces several new marijuana-sales charges.
He is charged in Del Norte County with planting and cultivation of
marijuana, possession of marijuana for sale, selling in lieu of a
controlled substance (trading in drugs) and being a felon in
possession of a firearm, said Riese.
Stewart was arrested at his trailer in Gasquet last April 17 with
Fred Kenneth Otremba, 48, of Crescent City, after the federal Drug
Enforcement Agency served a search warrant at the trailer with the
help of the Sheriff's Office.
Otremba is currently facing a charge of being a felon in possession
of a firearm.
The Sheriff's Office said Otremba and Stewart were trimming marijuana
when authorities arrived.
The arrests were part of a DEA operation called "Operation Green Acres."
As the lead agency in the raid, the DEA confiscated 100 pounds of
processed marijuana, 22 firearms and 84 plants, according to the
Sheriff's Office.
Riese said that because the two men were in Del Norte County when
they were arrested, he filed local charges against them -- so he
wouldn't have to wait for federal charges to be filed.
Riese said the men have appeared in court and the case will most
likely go to trial.
Stewart has already voiced the defense of being a Prop. 215 caregiver
just like he did in 2007, Riese said.
It's the same thing, he's saying they are compassionate caregivers
--they gave a certificate saying 'these are the people we care for,'"
said Riese.
So I said, 'prove it,'" he said, adding that in 2007 Stewart wasn't
required to prove he had been the caretaker of his "clients."
Riese said Stewart provided him with nearly a dozen of the Prop 215
certificates for the new case.
Alexander has since filed a motion to suppress the warrant that led
to the DEA confiscation of the processed marijuana, plants and firearms.
Stewart was already convicted around a decade ago in Del Norte County
for marijuana sales, said Riese.
Riese said Stewart was sentenced to 180 days in jail and felony
probation after he was found guilty of being in possession of a
10-pound bag of pot for sale.
The DA did not think the Prop. 215 compliance defense will work
because of the 100 pounds of pot that were found in the new case.
It's just not going to fly this time," said Riese.
The fate of confiscated drugs Sheriff Dean Wilson commented on the
office's policies on the confiscation of illicit substances and on
what he sees as problems with Stewart and Alexander's suit.
When processed marijuana --most commonly the dried and packaged buds
of the plant -- is confiscated it is kept until the case has been
adjudicated, said the sheriff.
Wilson said all the processed pot is kept in evidence, and "we'll
test a small portion of the marijuana."
The test would indicate the THC (tetra-hydra-cannabinol) content of
the drug, which is the chemical that gives users the "high."
The rest of it will be held in evidence up to the point to where the
case is adjudicated," said Wilson.
Some cases take so long that "the marijuana actually grows mold on it
before they would get it back," said the sheriff.
Wilson said his office hasn't given back any confiscated drugs, to
his knowledge.
He said pot-plant confiscation is different. When plants are
confiscated they are literally torn from the ground or planters they
are in and thrown in the back of a vehicle.
We retain a small percent of the plant, then record the amount of
THC," said the sheriff. "Once that is done, it just sits in our
impound and rots."
The sheriff said at the "rotting point," the plants are shredded and
buried, while processed pot is eventually burned.
Wilson said the burning, shredding and burying of confiscated pot
occurs in Del Norte County.
Usually, locally we can take care of the marijuana," he said.
Wilson said the policy is the same for most confiscated organic
drugs, such as hallucinogenic mushrooms.
Chemical drugs, such as methamphetamine, cocaine, ecstasy pills and
prescription narcotics, cannot be disposed of in Del Norte County, he said.
We just don't have the facilities -- so we have to take all the white
dope over to Shasta County," said Wilson.
Once or twice every year, the office clears out or destroys all of
its drug evidence for cases that have been resolved, he said.
Misinterpretation of Prop. 215? The sheriff said that he felt the
suit misrepresented Prop. 215.
The law, the way that it states it, is 'if I'm growing marijuana for
medicinal purposes -- I'm not allowed to make a profit from it,'" said Wilson.
So how could he ask for the profit from the plants?" he said about
Stewart and Alexander's suit.
The sheriff said if Prop. 215 medicinal use is granted, the "personal
use" pot is not to be sold or bartered with.
Wilson said that makes the suit's claim for "lost profit" a moot point.
If you're not doing a commercial operation, then what is the profit
of a plant that you can't legally sell?" he asked.
Alexander called Wilson's interpretation of Prop. 215 "simply not true."
The attorney said, "I would like to see Sheriff Wilson's socialist
view of medicine extended to the country's pharmaceutical companies."
____________________________________________________________
POT GROWER SUES FOR 'LOST PROFIT'
Sheriff Destroyed Confiscated Plants
A Gasquet man currently facing marijuana-sales charges has sued the
Del Norte County Sheriff's Office for "lost profit" after his
marijuana plants were destroyed prior to the dismissal of a previous
marijuana-sales case.
Kirk David Stewart, 45, filed the suit Jan. 2, claiming the Sheriff's
Office should have returned 93 confiscated plants to Stewart -- or at
least the cash amount that could have been made by harvesting them.
The suit states that "Mr. Stewart is requesting the fair market
value" of the 93 marijuana plants that were destroyed.
If there is any truth to the true market value of the marijuana the
(Drug) Task Force say they are taking off the streets, then Mr.
Stewart's plants are worth upwards of several hundred thousand
dollars," said Jon Alexander, Stewart's attorney.
Stewart was arrested in January 2007 after a search warrant was
served on a Crescent City residence on Union Street that he owned.
Authorities confiscated 93 plants along with numerous items used to
grow marijuana, including grow lights, exhaust fans, ballasts and pots.
The suit alleges that Alexander sent a request to the Sheriff's
Office in August 2007 asking for the return of the plants confiscated
from Stewart.
In April 2008, the charges against Stewart were dismissed by the DA's
office because Stewart was found to be in compliance with the
Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Proposition 215), according to the suit.
He brought these certificates saying there were 10 people he was in
care for," said District Attorney Mike Riese.
Equipment, not plants, returned Alexander said Stewart's case should
not have taken as long as it did to be dismissed.
His case did not need to languish for an entire year -- allowing his
marijuana to rot," the lawyer said.
In May 2008, the growing equipment had been returned to Stewart at
the Sheriff's Office, but the plants were not, the suit states.
A copy of the evidence release form included in the lawsuit states,
"unable to release MJ plants -- they were destroyed."
Riese suggested another reason why the Sheriff's Office doesn't ever
give back confiscated drugs after a case is dismissed.
The feds don't recognize Prop. 215," he said. "Under federal law,
marijuana is an illegal substance."
The DA said the Sheriff's Office abides by federal laws and if it
gave drugs back to someone who was exonerated, the office could be
under federal suspicion for drug trafficking.
If they do something with it -- it's part of a distribution chain," said Riese.
New charges pending Stewart now faces several new marijuana-sales charges.
He is charged in Del Norte County with planting and cultivation of
marijuana, possession of marijuana for sale, selling in lieu of a
controlled substance (trading in drugs) and being a felon in
possession of a firearm, said Riese.
Stewart was arrested at his trailer in Gasquet last April 17 with
Fred Kenneth Otremba, 48, of Crescent City, after the federal Drug
Enforcement Agency served a search warrant at the trailer with the
help of the Sheriff's Office.
Otremba is currently facing a charge of being a felon in possession
of a firearm.
The Sheriff's Office said Otremba and Stewart were trimming marijuana
when authorities arrived.
The arrests were part of a DEA operation called "Operation Green Acres."
As the lead agency in the raid, the DEA confiscated 100 pounds of
processed marijuana, 22 firearms and 84 plants, according to the
Sheriff's Office.
Riese said that because the two men were in Del Norte County when
they were arrested, he filed local charges against them -- so he
wouldn't have to wait for federal charges to be filed.
Riese said the men have appeared in court and the case will most
likely go to trial.
Stewart has already voiced the defense of being a Prop. 215 caregiver
just like he did in 2007, Riese said.
It's the same thing, he's saying they are compassionate caregivers
--they gave a certificate saying 'these are the people we care for,'"
said Riese.
So I said, 'prove it,'" he said, adding that in 2007 Stewart wasn't
required to prove he had been the caretaker of his "clients."
Riese said Stewart provided him with nearly a dozen of the Prop 215
certificates for the new case.
Alexander has since filed a motion to suppress the warrant that led
to the DEA confiscation of the processed marijuana, plants and firearms.
Stewart was already convicted around a decade ago in Del Norte County
for marijuana sales, said Riese.
Riese said Stewart was sentenced to 180 days in jail and felony
probation after he was found guilty of being in possession of a
10-pound bag of pot for sale.
The DA did not think the Prop. 215 compliance defense will work
because of the 100 pounds of pot that were found in the new case.
It's just not going to fly this time," said Riese.
The fate of confiscated drugs Sheriff Dean Wilson commented on the
office's policies on the confiscation of illicit substances and on
what he sees as problems with Stewart and Alexander's suit.
When processed marijuana --most commonly the dried and packaged buds
of the plant -- is confiscated it is kept until the case has been
adjudicated, said the sheriff.
Wilson said all the processed pot is kept in evidence, and "we'll
test a small portion of the marijuana."
The test would indicate the THC (tetra-hydra-cannabinol) content of
the drug, which is the chemical that gives users the "high."
The rest of it will be held in evidence up to the point to where the
case is adjudicated," said Wilson.
Some cases take so long that "the marijuana actually grows mold on it
before they would get it back," said the sheriff.
Wilson said his office hasn't given back any confiscated drugs, to
his knowledge.
He said pot-plant confiscation is different. When plants are
confiscated they are literally torn from the ground or planters they
are in and thrown in the back of a vehicle.
We retain a small percent of the plant, then record the amount of
THC," said the sheriff. "Once that is done, it just sits in our
impound and rots."
The sheriff said at the "rotting point," the plants are shredded and
buried, while processed pot is eventually burned.
Wilson said the burning, shredding and burying of confiscated pot
occurs in Del Norte County.
Usually, locally we can take care of the marijuana," he said.
Wilson said the policy is the same for most confiscated organic
drugs, such as hallucinogenic mushrooms.
Chemical drugs, such as methamphetamine, cocaine, ecstasy pills and
prescription narcotics, cannot be disposed of in Del Norte County, he said.
We just don't have the facilities -- so we have to take all the white
dope over to Shasta County," said Wilson.
Once or twice every year, the office clears out or destroys all of
its drug evidence for cases that have been resolved, he said.
Misinterpretation of Prop. 215? The sheriff said that he felt the
suit misrepresented Prop. 215.
The law, the way that it states it, is 'if I'm growing marijuana for
medicinal purposes -- I'm not allowed to make a profit from it,'" said Wilson.
So how could he ask for the profit from the plants?" he said about
Stewart and Alexander's suit.
The sheriff said if Prop. 215 medicinal use is granted, the "personal
use" pot is not to be sold or bartered with.
Wilson said that makes the suit's claim for "lost profit" a moot point.
If you're not doing a commercial operation, then what is the profit
of a plant that you can't legally sell?" he asked.
Alexander called Wilson's interpretation of Prop. 215 "simply not true."
The attorney said, "I would like to see Sheriff Wilson's socialist
view of medicine extended to the country's pharmaceutical companies."
____________________________________________________________
Hi Everyone in Riverside and San Bernardino County - From Lanny
1-11-9
Hi Everyone,
Once again – there is just so much going on that it is almost mind-boggling. With the economic disaster the country is going through (some pundits are now using the word “depression”), the two seemingly never-ending wars we are in and the looming (if not already here) disaster to our environment, medical marijuana and marijuana law reform pale in comparison. Cannabis cannot solve all these problems, but it can make a significant impact on each one.
As fuel and especially fiber, cannabis can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, practically eliminate the need to cut down forests for paper and hence have a significant impact on global warming and can be cultivated almost anywhere and needs less water than cotton. Solve all our environmental problems? – of course not. Make a significant improvement – absolutel y yes.
As for the economy, we can save $20 billion a year by ending law enforcement’s addiction to marijuana law prohibition and probably raise close to $50 billion a year in taxes (sin tax, sales tax, income tax and tax tax) on the legal sales of marijuana. With job losses and unemployment soaring to new heights, marijuana legalization will give jobs to hundreds of thousands. Will marijuana solve all our economic problems? – also of course not. Will it make a significant improvement? – Well I don’t know what world our elected officials are living in, but $50 billion plus hundreds of thousands of jobs isn’t something to ignore just because law enforcement wants to keep its pig trough of marijuana law prohibition and the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t want the competition from cheap pot.
As for the two wars – well there are some things even marijuana can’t help – although I am thoroughly convinced if everyone could just sit down and pass around some joints with some really killer weed, maybe the perspective and tolerance that pot seems so capable of inducing in its users may lead them to want to stop all this crap. I know that this is beyond fanciful thinking – but you know damn well that it wouldn’t hurt.
OK – so if you agree with the above, then you should get involved and look at all that is happening that you can ge t involved in.
1. MAPP patient support group & law reform meetings.
Wednesday, Jan. 14 at 7:30 p.m. at the THCF Medical Clinic, 647 Main Street, Riverside 92501. Click here for a map.
Wednesday, Jan. 21 at 6:30 p.m. at the Castle Inn, 1388 N. Golden Slipper Lane, Landers 92285. Click here for a map.
At both meetings we will be discussing what is happening in both Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. With lawsuits being filed in SB County, dispensary ordinances being passed in Palm Springs and Yucca Valley, patient collectives forming and patients still under threat by law enforcement and drug warrior organizations, there is lots of stuff going on that you need to know about and get involved with. If you live in those areas an ywhere within reasonable driving distance to the meetings, you would be greatly benefited by making the time and coming on down.
2. THCF Medical Clinic 1st Anniversary Celebration
January 17 marks the one year anniversary of the opening of the THCF Medical Clinic - the first cannabis therapeutics clinic in the Inland Empire. Since the first day, the clinic has provided medical marijuana recommendations to over 500 patients, effectively and safely treating a variety of ailments from arthritis to depression to chronic pain.
Located at 647 Main St. in Riverside, the clinic is centrally located within the Inland Empire and has become the center of medical marijuana activism in the region.
To celebrate the one year anniversary, the THCF Clinic is hosting a one year anniversary party on Saturday, Jan. 17 open to the general public. The highlight of the celebrati on will be the presentation of plaque of honor to California medical marijuana pioneer Anna Boyce.
Anna Boyce, who is a retired R.N. became the public voice of medical marijuana advocates and was seen in many TV commercials advocating for the passage of Proposition 215.
Mrs. Boyce will discuss how Proposition 215 came into existence and her role in educating voters about this groundbreaking legislation. Her task and that of other Prop. 215 advocates was formidable, but through their concerted advocacy they overcame the opposition by law enforcement on every level including the concerted effort by every California District Attorney, save one, to convince the voters not to pass Proposition 2 15.
There will be desserts and other refreshments so this indeed will be a festive as well as an historic occasion. I hope you can make it – this is one of those all too rare chances to get together and celebrate our knowledge that our use of cannabis is beneficial for our health and the community rather than all this try-to-figure-out-the-legal BS we always seem to be meeting over.
There is no charge to attend the THCF Medical Clinic’s first year anniversary party. The celebration will be held at the THCF Medical Clinic, 647 Main Street in Riverside 92501. Information may be obtained by calling 951-782-9898. Click here for a map.
Plan now to attend this event and meet Mrs. Boyce and many other patients and advocates in what promises to be very enjoyable evening on Saturday, Jan. 17 at 7:30 p.m. So as to get an idea of about how many desserts and drinks we are going to need , I would really appreciate it if you would either send me an email back letting me know that you are planning on coming or giving me a call at 760-799-2055.
3. Important phone call you can make to stop DEA raids!!!!
I am passing along to you this NATIONAL ACTION ALERT – please take 60 seconds to help stop the DEA raids by making a phone about the US Attorney General Confirmation! During his election campaign, President-elect Obama pledged to end DEA raids on individuals who use or provide medical cannabis in accordance with their state law. The U.S. Attorney General is the cabinet official who will carry out President-elect Obama's policies. Confirmation hearings for Obama's nominee, Eric Holder, are scheduled to begin on January 15th before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Help us make sure the next Attorney General keeps the promises made by President-elect Obama!=2 0
*Call Sen. Leahy's office at (202) 224-4242 and say: "Hi, my name is ___________ and I am calling about the Attorney General confirmation hearings. President-elect Obama said numerous times during his campaign that DEA raids on individuals legally qualified to use medical marijuana in their states are a waste of resources and that he would end that policy. 72 million Americans live in the 13 states with medical marijuana laws. Please ask Eric Holder if he will uphold Obama's promise and end DEA raids on legal medical marijuana patients."
This is really Really REALLY important. It will take less than 60 seconds and YOU CAN CALL ANYTIME 24/7 because if the Senator’s office is not open, you can leave a message on the voice mail. I believe Senator Leahy has supported us in the past, so make sure he continues this support by asking him to ask AG nominee Eric Holden if he will uphold President elect Obama’s pledge to end DEA raids against medical marijuana patients in states that have legalized the use of marijuana medicinally.
Call his office RIGHT NOW at (202) 224-4242.
You may have heard about President elect=2 0Obama’s transition team website www.change.gov. Marijuana issues have been among the top issues and in a number instances, it is the number one issue. If you want to join in and let them know that marijuana law reform and medicinal marijuana is an important issue go to the following link.
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/legalize_the_medicinal_and_recreational_use_of_marijuana
4. Yucca Valley City Council recently passed a medical marijuana dispensary ban, but the one collective that was already up and running was grandfathered in. Now there is a concerted effort to try and close it being whipped up by the Inland Valley Drug Free Community Coalition. In another atrocious column by these anti-harm reduction drug warriors published in the Hi-Desert Star, they spread falsehoods and lies in order to whip up public support against medical marijuana and direct that anger at Yucca Valley’s lone medical marijuana dispensary. I have printed at the end of this email the IVDFCC column and an article about the meeting held in=2 0Yucca Valley last week.
This is an example how the IVDFCC works to defeat us (and with your tax money to boot).
I am not aware of anywhere else in the state of California where law enforcement is using public money to get the public to take action to close down medical marijuana facilities, but that is exactly what is happening here and if it succeeds here I don’t doubt for one second that other law enforcement agencies up and down the state will take their cue from San Bernardino law enforcement and channel public money to these organizations that are out to defeat us.
If we don’t challenge them by responding to their threats, then their BS becomes reality for the general public. Please read the article and column at the end of this email and then write a response and send it to: editor@hidesertstar.com
At the Wednesday, Jan. 21 MAPP meeting we will be dealing with this challenge. I strongly urge all of you up in the High Desert to attend this meeting. If you don’t challenge them and stop this illegal and unethical behavior on the part of law enforcement, then no one will and if you think it is difficult and dangerous to obtain your medicine, it will only get worse.
5 . Send us a donation!!!!! Please!!!!
Any cause organization in order to be effective relies on their supporters to help provide them with the financial resources needed to do what needs to be done. Could you take a moment and go to our website, www.marijuananews.org, and help provide us those resources by making a donation?
As you can see we are up to our neck in alligators and we need your help to get a boat.
Donations can also be made by sending a check made out to MAPP to:
MAPP, PO Box 739, Palm Springs CA 92263.
If you would like to make a tax deductible donation, please contact me.
Take action today. There’s so much you can do it. Will you do it?
Lanny
Hi Everyone,
Once again – there is just so much going on that it is almost mind-boggling. With the economic disaster the country is going through (some pundits are now using the word “depression”), the two seemingly never-ending wars we are in and the looming (if not already here) disaster to our environment, medical marijuana and marijuana law reform pale in comparison. Cannabis cannot solve all these problems, but it can make a significant impact on each one.
As fuel and especially fiber, cannabis can reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, practically eliminate the need to cut down forests for paper and hence have a significant impact on global warming and can be cultivated almost anywhere and needs less water than cotton. Solve all our environmental problems? – of course not. Make a significant improvement – absolutel y yes.
As for the economy, we can save $20 billion a year by ending law enforcement’s addiction to marijuana law prohibition and probably raise close to $50 billion a year in taxes (sin tax, sales tax, income tax and tax tax) on the legal sales of marijuana. With job losses and unemployment soaring to new heights, marijuana legalization will give jobs to hundreds of thousands. Will marijuana solve all our economic problems? – also of course not. Will it make a significant improvement? – Well I don’t know what world our elected officials are living in, but $50 billion plus hundreds of thousands of jobs isn’t something to ignore just because law enforcement wants to keep its pig trough of marijuana law prohibition and the pharmaceutical industry doesn’t want the competition from cheap pot.
As for the two wars – well there are some things even marijuana can’t help – although I am thoroughly convinced if everyone could just sit down and pass around some joints with some really killer weed, maybe the perspective and tolerance that pot seems so capable of inducing in its users may lead them to want to stop all this crap. I know that this is beyond fanciful thinking – but you know damn well that it wouldn’t hurt.
OK – so if you agree with the above, then you should get involved and look at all that is happening that you can ge t involved in.
1. MAPP patient support group & law reform meetings.
Wednesday, Jan. 14 at 7:30 p.m. at the THCF Medical Clinic, 647 Main Street, Riverside 92501. Click here for a map.
Wednesday, Jan. 21 at 6:30 p.m. at the Castle Inn, 1388 N. Golden Slipper Lane, Landers 92285. Click here for a map.
At both meetings we will be discussing what is happening in both Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. With lawsuits being filed in SB County, dispensary ordinances being passed in Palm Springs and Yucca Valley, patient collectives forming and patients still under threat by law enforcement and drug warrior organizations, there is lots of stuff going on that you need to know about and get involved with. If you live in those areas an ywhere within reasonable driving distance to the meetings, you would be greatly benefited by making the time and coming on down.
2. THCF Medical Clinic 1st Anniversary Celebration
January 17 marks the one year anniversary of the opening of the THCF Medical Clinic - the first cannabis therapeutics clinic in the Inland Empire. Since the first day, the clinic has provided medical marijuana recommendations to over 500 patients, effectively and safely treating a variety of ailments from arthritis to depression to chronic pain.
Located at 647 Main St. in Riverside, the clinic is centrally located within the Inland Empire and has become the center of medical marijuana activism in the region.
To celebrate the one year anniversary, the THCF Clinic is hosting a one year anniversary party on Saturday, Jan. 17 open to the general public. The highlight of the celebrati on will be the presentation of plaque of honor to California medical marijuana pioneer Anna Boyce.
Anna Boyce, who is a retired R.N. became the public voice of medical marijuana advocates and was seen in many TV commercials advocating for the passage of Proposition 215.
Mrs. Boyce will discuss how Proposition 215 came into existence and her role in educating voters about this groundbreaking legislation. Her task and that of other Prop. 215 advocates was formidable, but through their concerted advocacy they overcame the opposition by law enforcement on every level including the concerted effort by every California District Attorney, save one, to convince the voters not to pass Proposition 2 15.
There will be desserts and other refreshments so this indeed will be a festive as well as an historic occasion. I hope you can make it – this is one of those all too rare chances to get together and celebrate our knowledge that our use of cannabis is beneficial for our health and the community rather than all this try-to-figure-out-the-legal BS we always seem to be meeting over.
There is no charge to attend the THCF Medical Clinic’s first year anniversary party. The celebration will be held at the THCF Medical Clinic, 647 Main Street in Riverside 92501. Information may be obtained by calling 951-782-9898. Click here for a map.
Plan now to attend this event and meet Mrs. Boyce and many other patients and advocates in what promises to be very enjoyable evening on Saturday, Jan. 17 at 7:30 p.m. So as to get an idea of about how many desserts and drinks we are going to need , I would really appreciate it if you would either send me an email back letting me know that you are planning on coming or giving me a call at 760-799-2055.
3. Important phone call you can make to stop DEA raids!!!!
I am passing along to you this NATIONAL ACTION ALERT – please take 60 seconds to help stop the DEA raids by making a phone about the US Attorney General Confirmation! During his election campaign, President-elect Obama pledged to end DEA raids on individuals who use or provide medical cannabis in accordance with their state law. The U.S. Attorney General is the cabinet official who will carry out President-elect Obama's policies. Confirmation hearings for Obama's nominee, Eric Holder, are scheduled to begin on January 15th before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). Help us make sure the next Attorney General keeps the promises made by President-elect Obama!=2 0
*Call Sen. Leahy's office at (202) 224-4242 and say: "Hi, my name is ___________ and I am calling about the Attorney General confirmation hearings. President-elect Obama said numerous times during his campaign that DEA raids on individuals legally qualified to use medical marijuana in their states are a waste of resources and that he would end that policy. 72 million Americans live in the 13 states with medical marijuana laws. Please ask Eric Holder if he will uphold Obama's promise and end DEA raids on legal medical marijuana patients."
This is really Really REALLY important. It will take less than 60 seconds and YOU CAN CALL ANYTIME 24/7 because if the Senator’s office is not open, you can leave a message on the voice mail. I believe Senator Leahy has supported us in the past, so make sure he continues this support by asking him to ask AG nominee Eric Holden if he will uphold President elect Obama’s pledge to end DEA raids against medical marijuana patients in states that have legalized the use of marijuana medicinally.
Call his office RIGHT NOW at (202) 224-4242.
You may have heard about President elect=2 0Obama’s transition team website www.change.gov. Marijuana issues have been among the top issues and in a number instances, it is the number one issue. If you want to join in and let them know that marijuana law reform and medicinal marijuana is an important issue go to the following link.
http://www.change.org/ideas/view/legalize_the_medicinal_and_recreational_use_of_marijuana
4. Yucca Valley City Council recently passed a medical marijuana dispensary ban, but the one collective that was already up and running was grandfathered in. Now there is a concerted effort to try and close it being whipped up by the Inland Valley Drug Free Community Coalition. In another atrocious column by these anti-harm reduction drug warriors published in the Hi-Desert Star, they spread falsehoods and lies in order to whip up public support against medical marijuana and direct that anger at Yucca Valley’s lone medical marijuana dispensary. I have printed at the end of this email the IVDFCC column and an article about the meeting held in=2 0Yucca Valley last week.
This is an example how the IVDFCC works to defeat us (and with your tax money to boot).
I am not aware of anywhere else in the state of California where law enforcement is using public money to get the public to take action to close down medical marijuana facilities, but that is exactly what is happening here and if it succeeds here I don’t doubt for one second that other law enforcement agencies up and down the state will take their cue from San Bernardino law enforcement and channel public money to these organizations that are out to defeat us.
If we don’t challenge them by responding to their threats, then their BS becomes reality for the general public. Please read the article and column at the end of this email and then write a response and send it to: editor@hidesertstar.com
At the Wednesday, Jan. 21 MAPP meeting we will be dealing with this challenge. I strongly urge all of you up in the High Desert to attend this meeting. If you don’t challenge them and stop this illegal and unethical behavior on the part of law enforcement, then no one will and if you think it is difficult and dangerous to obtain your medicine, it will only get worse.
5 . Send us a donation!!!!! Please!!!!
Any cause organization in order to be effective relies on their supporters to help provide them with the financial resources needed to do what needs to be done. Could you take a moment and go to our website, www.marijuananews.org, and help provide us those resources by making a donation?
As you can see we are up to our neck in alligators and we need your help to get a boat.
Donations can also be made by sending a check made out to MAPP to:
MAPP, PO Box 739, Palm Springs CA 92263.
If you would like to make a tax deductible donation, please contact me.
Take action today. There’s so much you can do it. Will you do it?
Lanny
DON'T WASTE RESOURCES: ID PROGRAM IS OVERDUE
DON'T WASTE RESOURCES: ID PROGRAM IS OVERDUE
Newshawk: http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm
Pubdate: Mon, 12 Jan 2009
Source: Reporter, The (Vacaville, CA)
Copyright: 2009 The Reporter
Contact: letters@thereporter.com
Website: http://www.thereporter.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/472
Cited: Board of Supervisors http://www.co.solano.ca.us/depts/bos/default.asp
Cited: Health and Social Services Department http://www.co.solano.ca.us/depts/hss/default.asp
Cited: Americans for Safe Access http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Americans+for+Safe+Access
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
DON'T WASTE RESOURCES: ID PROGRAM IS OVERDUE
It is hard to believe that a county looking at all possible ways to cut expenses has resources to waste on a losing court battle, but that would seem to be the case in Solano County.
Last week, the Board of Supervisors and the Health and Social Services Department were sued because Solano continues to disregard a state law that requires counties to issue identification cards to patients whose physicians legitimately prescribe marijuana for a serious medical condition.
The law requiring counties to issue the cards was adopted by the Legislature in 2003 to clarify issues raised after voters approved Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Some 55 percent of Solano County voters joined the majority of Californians in approving that initiative.
And yet Solano County has steadfastly refused to follow state law on the matter.
The last time Supervisors voted on the issue, in 2006, the sentiment was that the board should wait until a San Diego County lawsuit concerning the legality of the state law was settled.
As it turns out, San Diego, which also does not wish to issue the cards, lost its case. The Superior Court upheld the validity of state-issued medical marijuana cards and the state Appeals and Supreme courts declined to hear any appeal. The final rejection came in October.
In August and again in October, the plaintiffs in the newest lawsuit, Americans for Safe Access, formally asked Solano County to establish a medical marijuana ID program. The plea fell on deaf ears, so the organization turned to the courts.
It is hard to imagine that judges are going to find in Solano's favor, considering not only the recent Supreme Court action but also an opinion by Attorney General Jerry Brown and instructions by the state Department of Publish Health, both requiring counties to provide the cards.
But it is easy to imagine that the courts will order the county to pay the plaintiff's attorney fees.
More to the point, it is foolish for the county not to issue the cards, which are specifically designed to help law officers determine who has a legitimate prescription for medical marijuana and who doesn't.
Statewide, 41 counties now issue the cards. Six more -- including neighboring Sacramento and San Joaquin counties -- are expected to implement the ID program this fiscal year. Solano is among only 11 holdouts.
It should stop fighting a losing battle and issue the cards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Newshawk: http://www.drugsense.org/donate.htm
Pubdate: Mon, 12 Jan 2009
Source: Reporter, The (Vacaville, CA)
Copyright: 2009 The Reporter
Contact: letters@thereporter.com
Website: http://www.thereporter.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/472
Cited: Board of Supervisors http://www.co.solano.ca.us/depts/bos/default.asp
Cited: Health and Social Services Department http://www.co.solano.ca.us/depts/hss/default.asp
Cited: Americans for Safe Access http://www.americansforsafeaccess.org
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/topic/Americans+for+Safe+Access
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/mmj.htm (Marijuana - Medicinal)
DON'T WASTE RESOURCES: ID PROGRAM IS OVERDUE
It is hard to believe that a county looking at all possible ways to cut expenses has resources to waste on a losing court battle, but that would seem to be the case in Solano County.
Last week, the Board of Supervisors and the Health and Social Services Department were sued because Solano continues to disregard a state law that requires counties to issue identification cards to patients whose physicians legitimately prescribe marijuana for a serious medical condition.
The law requiring counties to issue the cards was adopted by the Legislature in 2003 to clarify issues raised after voters approved Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. Some 55 percent of Solano County voters joined the majority of Californians in approving that initiative.
And yet Solano County has steadfastly refused to follow state law on the matter.
The last time Supervisors voted on the issue, in 2006, the sentiment was that the board should wait until a San Diego County lawsuit concerning the legality of the state law was settled.
As it turns out, San Diego, which also does not wish to issue the cards, lost its case. The Superior Court upheld the validity of state-issued medical marijuana cards and the state Appeals and Supreme courts declined to hear any appeal. The final rejection came in October.
In August and again in October, the plaintiffs in the newest lawsuit, Americans for Safe Access, formally asked Solano County to establish a medical marijuana ID program. The plea fell on deaf ears, so the organization turned to the courts.
It is hard to imagine that judges are going to find in Solano's favor, considering not only the recent Supreme Court action but also an opinion by Attorney General Jerry Brown and instructions by the state Department of Publish Health, both requiring counties to provide the cards.
But it is easy to imagine that the courts will order the county to pay the plaintiff's attorney fees.
More to the point, it is foolish for the county not to issue the cards, which are specifically designed to help law officers determine who has a legitimate prescription for medical marijuana and who doesn't.
Statewide, 41 counties now issue the cards. Six more -- including neighboring Sacramento and San Joaquin counties -- are expected to implement the ID program this fiscal year. Solano is among only 11 holdouts.
It should stop fighting a losing battle and issue the cards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, January 9, 2009
Solano County sued over pot ID cards Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Solano County sued over pot ID cards
Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
(01-05) 16:03 PST FAIRFIELD --
A medical-marijuana advocacy group sued Solano County on Monday for its failure to issue identification cards to users of medicinal cannabis as required by state law.
The lawsuit, filed in Solano County Superior Court, said the county is among several in California that have failed to give out the cards, which protect their holders from arrest by state or local police for possessing small amounts of marijuana.
"Solano County cannot simply flout its obligation under the law," Joe Elford, an attorney for Americans for Safe Access, said in a statement.
The group sent letters to Solano County in August and October urging it to comply with the 2003 law requiring the marijuana ID card program, Elford said.
In July, a state court of appeal upheld California's medical marijuana law enacted in 1996, rejecting arguments by San Diego and San Bernardino counties that allowing patients to use the drug with their doctor's approval condoned violations of federal narcotics laws.
Of California's 58 counties, 51 comply with the ID card program, Elford said.
Jo Ann Parker, deputy Solano County counsel, said the county had not yet been served with the suit. But she noted that the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to discuss the ID card program in closed session Jan. 13.
E-mail Henry K. Lee at hlee@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/06/BAAO1541JK.DTL
This article appeared on page B - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Henry K. Lee, Chronicle Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
(01-05) 16:03 PST FAIRFIELD --
A medical-marijuana advocacy group sued Solano County on Monday for its failure to issue identification cards to users of medicinal cannabis as required by state law.
The lawsuit, filed in Solano County Superior Court, said the county is among several in California that have failed to give out the cards, which protect their holders from arrest by state or local police for possessing small amounts of marijuana.
"Solano County cannot simply flout its obligation under the law," Joe Elford, an attorney for Americans for Safe Access, said in a statement.
The group sent letters to Solano County in August and October urging it to comply with the 2003 law requiring the marijuana ID card program, Elford said.
In July, a state court of appeal upheld California's medical marijuana law enacted in 1996, rejecting arguments by San Diego and San Bernardino counties that allowing patients to use the drug with their doctor's approval condoned violations of federal narcotics laws.
Of California's 58 counties, 51 comply with the ID card program, Elford said.
Jo Ann Parker, deputy Solano County counsel, said the county had not yet been served with the suit. But she noted that the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to discuss the ID card program in closed session Jan. 13.
E-mail Henry K. Lee at hlee@sfchronicle.com.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/06/BAAO1541JK.DTL
This article appeared on page B - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
