July, 15 2013, 02:35pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford 415-573-7842 or ASA Media Liaison Kris Hermes 510-681-6361
Advocates Appeal Marijuana's Federal Status as a Dangerous Drug with No Medical Value to U.S. Supreme Court
Patient advocacy group argues that over 200 peer-reviewed studies are more than adequate to show medical efficacy
WASHINGTON
Medical marijuana patient advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) filed a petition for writ of certiorari today with the U.S. Supreme Court to appeal a January Circuit Court decision that maintained marijuana's current federal status as one of the most dangerous drugs with no medical value. In the widely watched case ASA v. Drug Enforcement Administration, petitioners are challenging an unreasonable and unprecedented standard set by the District of Columbia Circuit, which also creates a federal appellate split on what constitutes proof of medical efficacy.
"To deny that sufficient evidence is lacking on the medical efficacy of marijuana is to ignore a mountain of well-documented studies that conclude otherwise," said ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford, who argued the appeal before the D.C. Circuit in October of last year. "The Court has unreasonably raised the bar for what qualifies as an 'adequate and well-controlled' study, thereby continuing the government's game of 'Gotcha.'"
On January 22nd, the D.C. Circuit granted plaintiffs standing -- the right to sue the federal government to reclassify marijuana -- but, in a 2-1 ruling, denied the appeal on the merits by setting a new, virtually-impossible to meet standard for assessing medical efficacy. Although ASA cited more than 200 peer-reviewed studies in its appeal, the D.C. Circuit held that plaintiffs must produce evidence from Phase II and Phase III clinical trials -- usually reserved for companies trying to bring a new drug to market -- in order to show marijuana's medical efficacy.
This new standard set by the D.C. Circuit creates an appellate split with the First Circuit in Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1987), which held the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) cannot treat a lack of FDA marketing approval as conclusive evidence that a substance has no "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." The Grinspoon Court also held that for some drugs (like smoked marijuana) "there is no economic or other incentive to seek interstate marketing approval...because [they] cannot be patented and exploited commercially." The D.C. Circuit's standard not only conflicts with Grinspoon, however, it also sets such a stringent requirement on proving medical efficacy that future petitions to reschedule -- such as those filed in 2011 by the governors of four states (CO, RI, VT, and WA) -- will likely face similar uphill battles.
In 2002, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis, made up of several individuals and organizations including ASA, filed a petition to reclassify marijuana for medical use. That petition was denied by the DEA in July 2011. The appeal to the D.C. Circuit was the first time in nearly 20 years that a federal court has reviewed the issue of whether adequate scientific evidence exists to reclassify marijuana. Before the January ruling, the D.C. Circuit had never granted plaintiffs the right to sue when seeking reclassification of marijuana.
"The Obama Administration's legal efforts are keeping marijuana out of reach for millions of qualified patients who would benefit from its use," continued Elford. "It's long past time for the federal government to change our country's harmful policy on medical marijuana, and if it must be compelled to do so by the courts then so be it." Over the past decade, an even greater number of scientific studies have been conducted clearly showing the medical efficacy of marijuana, and national polls have consistently ranked popular support for medical marijuana at around 80 percent.
Today's filing comes at the height of federal attacks against state law-compliant medical marijuana cultivators and distributors. A recent report issued by ASA claimed that the Obama Administration spent nearly $300 million over the past four years on aggressive enforcement practices in medical marijuana states. ASA has also launched a campaign calling for Peace for Patients in an effort to restrict Justice Department funding and curtail continued attacks on medical marijuana patient and their providers.
Further information:
ASA petition for writ of certiorari: https://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/Cert_Petition_ASA_v_DEA.pdf
D.C. Circuit decision: https://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/DC_Circuit_Ruling_ASA_v_DE...
2002 CRC rescheduling petition: https://www.drugscience.org/PDF/Petition_Final_2002.pdf
Americans for Safe Access is the nation's largest organization of patients, medical professionals, scientists and concerned citizens promoting safe and legal access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research.
LATEST NEWS
AOC Blasts AIPAC as 'The NRA of Foreign Policy'
The New York Democrat was among lawmakers and others calling out the pro-Israel lobby group as it advocated against a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip.
Feb 21, 2024
As the American Israel Public Affairs Committee took aim at Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other progressive lawmakers critical of U.S. support for Israel's war on the Gaza Strip, the New York Democrat compared the lobby group to the National Rifle Association.
After a CNN journalist noted on social media that an Israeli group submitted to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) a report on sexual violence allegedly committed during the Hamas-led October 7 attack on Israel, AIPAC claimed that "a cease-fire now keeps these rapist monsters armed and in power in Gaza," and mentioned multiple members of Congress, including Ocasio-Cortez.
The New York Democrat responded that "it is appalling that AIPAC is targeting women members of Congress who have survived sexual assault with this horrific rhetoric. Each and every day, their role in U.S. politics becomes a greater scandal. They are the NRA of foreign policy. Of course they don't want a cease-fire."
The other lawmakers targeted by AIPAC were Democratic Reps. Jamaal Bowman (N.Y.), Cori Bush (Mo.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), the only Palestinian American in Congress.
"I'm starting to think that AIPAC isn't just a puppet of [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, but a partner," said Pocan. "They cover for his murdering of innocents in the course of supposedly going after Hamas and those actions aren't getting hostages released. They seem fine with that and don't mind the killing of kids."
In less than five months, Israel's blockade and bombardment of Gaza have killed at least 29,313 Palestinians and devastated civilian infrastructure, displacing the vast majority of the Hamas-governed enclave's 2.3 million residents.
Before October 7, the United States already gave Israel nearly $4 billion in annual military aid. The Biden administration has responded to the war by seeking a package worth over $14 billion, bypassing federal lawmakers to arm Israeli forces, and defending Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories at the ICJ on Wednesday.
AIPAC, meanwhile, has worked to oust progressive members of Congress in the November election. The group is also fighting growing global allegations that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and demands for a cease-fire deal that would free hostages taken on October 7 as well as Palestinians imprisoned in Israel.
"A cease-fire means Palestinians will not be slaughtered by Israel every day. A cease-fire means medicine and food. A cease-fire means hostages come home," Jewish Voice for Peace political director Beth Miller said of the group's social media post. "AIPAC wants a total genocide of Palestinians, with full funding from the U.S. AIPAC wants death and destruction. That's it."
Organizer Melissa Byrne accused AIPAC of "exploiting sexual violence to keep a war going," adding that the group "prefers war to freeing the hostages and security for Israel and Palestine."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Anti-Migrant Directives Under Consideration by Biden Slammed as 'Trump Policy'
"People seek asylum because they fear for their lives. President Biden would be making a grave mistake if he moves forward with this policy," said Rep. Chuy GarcÃa.
Feb 21, 2024
Immigration rights advocates on Wednesday condemned President Joe Biden's reported consideration of a series of anti-migrant actions, including invoking an executive authority used by the Trump administration to make it more difficult for people to seek asylum in the United States.
According to reports, Biden is considering acting without Congress in an election year bid to stem the flow of undocumented migrants at the southern U.S. border.
"This would be an extremely disappointing mistake. Cruel enforcement-only policies have been tried for 30 years and simply do not work," Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said in response to the reporting.
"Democrats cannot continue to take pages out of Donald Trump and Stephen Miller's playbook—we need to lead with dignity and humanity," she added, referring to the former U.S. president and 2024 GOP front-runner and his xenophobic senior immigration adviser.
As Politicoreported:
Among the ideas under discussion include using a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act to bar migrants from seeking asylum in between U.S. ports of entry. The administration is also discussing tying that directive to a trigger—meaning that it would only come into effect after a certain number of illegal crossings took place, said the three people, who were granted anonymity to discuss private deliberations.
A trigger mechanism was part of a bipartisan Senate border deal that never reached the floor earlier this month. During the deal's construction... Biden repeatedly said it would have given him the authority to "shut down" the border.
The White House is also reportedly considering invoking Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which empowers the president to ban entry to noncitizens who are deemed "detrimental to the interests of the United States." Trump repeatedly tried to use Section 212(f) as his administration pursued draconian anti-migrant measures. However, three levels of the federal judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court, blocked him from doing so.
The White House would not comment on the reports, but spokesperson Angelo Fernández Hernández said that the Biden administration "spent months negotiating in good faith to deliver the toughest and fairest bipartisan border security bill in decades because we need Congress to make significant policy reforms and to provide additional funding to secure our border and fix our broken immigration system."
"No executive action, no matter how aggressive, can deliver the significant policy reforms and additional resources Congress can provide and that Republicans rejected," he added, calling on House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Republicans to "pass the bipartisan deal to secure the border."
In addition to expanding Title 42—a provision first invoked by the Trump administration at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic—to expel more than 1 million migrants under the guise of public safety, Biden also forced migrants to prove that they previously sought asylum in a third country before applying for U.S. protection.
"The cruel measures being proposed collectively create a government-mandated asylum ban."
The Biden administration also required asylum-seekers to schedule an appointment using an app that connects them to Customs and Border Protection instead of attempting to cross the border. Asylum-seekers often did not have internet access, and the app was riddled with glitches.
Title 42 ended last May, and a federal judge blocked some of Biden's other anti-migrant policies in July.
"What is needed now more than ever from the Biden administration is to ensure that any border security executive actions protect due process for asylum-seekers and provide resources for a fair, efficient, and humane asylum system," Murad Awawdeh, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, said in a statement on Wednesday.
"The cruel measures being proposed collectively create a government-mandated asylum ban, which even border officials contend will only create more chaos at the southern border, while failing to address the real issue at hand," he added. "We call on the Biden administration to abandon this cruel proposed plan and immediately invest in strategic, humane actions that will help secure our border and provide fair treatment for asylum-seekers."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Alabama University Pauses IVF Treatments After Court Rules Embryos Are 'Children'
"This cruel ruling, and the subsequent decision by UAB's health system, are horrifying signals of what's to come across the country," warned the head of one infertility group.
Feb 21, 2024
Alabama's leading medical school said Wednesday that it has paused in vitro fertilization procedures due to fear of prosecution after the state's highest court ruled that frozen embryos are "children."
"We must evaluate the potential that our patients and our physicians could be prosecuted criminally or face punitive damages for following the standard of care for IVF treatments," University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) spokesperson Hannah Echols toldAL.com, adding that she is "saddened" for patients seeking the treatment.
"Alabamans in the midst of seeking treatment have had their lives and their hopes and dreams crushed."
UAB's move follows Friday's
theology-ridden ruling by the Alabama Supreme Court that embryos are "extrauterine children." Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Parker—who espoused Christian fundamentalist control of U.S. society during a recent interview with a QAnon conspiracy theorist—wrote in the ruling that "human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God."
Barbara Collura, president and CEO of RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association, said in a statement that the organization is "absolutely heartbroken for the Alabama family building community."
"The University of Alabama at Birmingham health system—the largest healthcare system in the state—has been forced to make an impossible decision: Pause IVF procedures for those hoping to build their families, or put their patients and doctors at risk of prosecution," she added.
As AL.com's Amy Yurkanin explained:
There are many reasons families turn to IVF treatment. Some women may have blocked fallopian tubes that won't allow fertilized eggs to travel to the uterus. In other cases, families can carry genes that cause fatal diseases and may want to create embryos that can be tested. In those cases, families will transfer healthy embryos and may discard or donate those that carry genetic diseases.
"There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who are right now in the middle of a physically and emotionally challenging medical process to fulfill their dream of a baby," Collura said. "Would-be parents have invested their hearts, time, and resources. Now, less than a week after the Alabama Supreme Court's devastating ruling, Alabamans in the midst of seeking treatment have had their lives and their hopes and dreams crushed."
"This cruel ruling, and the subsequent decision by UAB's health system, are horrifying signals of what's to come across the country," she added. "We will continue to fight to maintain and increase access to care for the 1 in 6 adults nationwide who struggle with infertility."
Calling the Alabama ruling "so deeply fucked up," HuffPost senior politics reporter Jennifer Bendery noted that former U.S. President Donald Trump, the 2024 GOP front-runner, "spent years putting people forward for lifetime federal judgeships who had grave concerns with fertility treatments like IVF and then Senate Republicans confirmed them."
"Anyone who knows about IVF treatments knows how financially and emotionally exhaustive this process can be," Bendery added. "And that it might not even work, after years of this. I feel for these Alabama women being turned away now as they're already going through this."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular