October, 16 2012, 08:35am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
ASA Chief Counsel Joe Elford 415-573-7842 or ASA Media Liaison Kris Hermes 510-681-6361
Landmark Federal Medical Marijuana Hearing Today in the D.C. Circuit
Advocates challenge marijuana's classification, present scientific evidence for first time in nearly 20 years
WASHINGTON
For the first time in nearly 20 years, advocates will use scientific evidence of marijuana's medical efficacy to try to force a change in the federal government's classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug with no medical value. Medical marijuana advocates will participate in oral arguments today before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the landmark case Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration. Advocates contend that the government has arbitrarily and capriciously kept marijuana classified as a Schedule I substance and out of reach for millions of Americans by ignoring overwhelming research on the therapeutic value of marijuana.
- What: Oral arguments on marijuana's medical value in the case Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration
- When: Tuesday, October 16, 2012 at 9:30am
- Where: United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 333 Constitution Avenue NW
Local press conference and interviews to follow oral arguments (approx. 11:30pm)
"Medical marijuana patients are finally getting their day in court," said Joe Elford, who will be arguing the case before the court today as Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access, the country's leading medical marijuana advocacy group. "This is a rare opportunity for patients to confront politically motivated decision-making with scientific evidence of marijuana's medical efficacy," continued Elford. "What's at stake in this case is nothing less than our country's scientific integrity and the imminent needs of millions of patients."
Today's oral arguments are the culmination of efforts started 10 years ago by the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis (CRC). In 2002, the CRC filed a rescheduling petition that the federal government refused to answer until last year when advocates sued the Obama Administration for unreasonable delay. After the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) denied the CRC petition in July of last year, ASA responded by filing an appeal with the D.C. Circuit in January.
Patient advocates claim that marijuana is treated unlike any other controlled substance and that politics has dominated over medical science on this issue. Advocates point to a research approval process for marijuana, controlled by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which is unique, overly rigorous, and hinders meaningful therapeutic research. ASA argues in its appeal brief that the DEA has no "license to apply different criteria to marijuana than to other drugs, ignore critical scientific data, misrepresent social science research, or rely upon unsubstantiated assumptions, as the DEA has done in this case."
Today's oral arguments come just months after a study was published in The Open Neurology Journal by Dr. Igor Grant, one of the leading U.S. medical marijuana researchers, claiming that marijuana's Schedule I classification is "not tenable." Dr. Grant and his fellow researchers concluded it was "not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on safety is lacking." The study urged additional research, and stated that marijuana's federal classification and its political controversy are "obstacles to medical progress in this area." Marijuana's classification as a Schedule I substance (along with heroin and allegedly more dangerous than methamphetamine in Schedule II) is based on the federal government's position that it has "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."
An open letter from more than 70 medical professionals in 15 U.S. states, including physicians, physician assistants, and registered nurse practitioners, is being sent to the Obama Administration in advance of Tuesday's arguments. The letter cites favorable positions on rescheduling by the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American Nurses Association, refuting the federal government's position that marijuana lacks "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."
Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have adopted medical marijuana laws that not only recognize the medical efficacy of marijuana, but also provide safe and legal access to it. Since the CRC petition was filed in 2002, an even greater number of studies have been published that show the medical benefits of marijuana for illnesses such as neuropathic pain, multiple sclerosis, and Alzheimer's. Last year, the National Cancer Institute, a division of the federal Department of Health and Human Services, added cannabis to its list of Complementary Alternative Medicines, pointing out that it's been therapeutically used for millennia.
The panel of judges assigned to hear oral arguments includes Circuit Judges Henderson and Garland, and Senior Circuit Judge Edwards.
Further information:
ASA appeal brief: https://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/CRC_Appeal.pdf
Open letter from medical professionals: https://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/medical-professionals-letter
DEA denial of CRC petition: https://AmericansForSafeAccess.org/downloads/CRC_Petition_DEA_Answer.pdf
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
FTC Probing 'Blockbuster' Exxon-Pioneer Merger
"The FTC is right to investigate Exxon's acquisition of Pioneer, which could raise prices at the pump and is aimed at keeping the U.S. reliant on fossil fuels," said one campaigner.
Dec 05, 2023
Amid outrage from climate campaigners and senators, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission is investigating fossil fuel giant ExxonMobil's proposed takeover of Pioneer Natural Resources, a regulatory filing revealed Tuesday.
Pioneer disclosed the FTC's request for more information about the pending merger, which Exxon announced in October.
U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement Tuesday: "Last month, I and 22 other senators urged the FTC to investigate Exxon's $60 billion proposed blockbuster merger with Pioneer. And today—they heeded my warning."
"Americans care a great deal about gas prices," Schumer stressed, "and if this merger were to go through it would most certainly raise gas prices for families across the country."
"This merger has all the hallmarks of harmful, anticompetitive effects. The FTC is right to investigate this merger to see if it would lead to higher gas prices or less competition," he added. "I look forward to following this investigation closely, and will encourage the FTC to block the deal if they find any antitrust laws are being violated."
Alex Witt of Climate Power, an advocacy group founded by the Center for American Progress (CAP) Action Fund, League of Conservation Voters, and Sierra Club, also welcomed the FTC's inquiry in comments to The Associated Press.
"Exxon publicly promised to reduce emissions, yet subsequently spent $60 billion acquiring another fossil fuel company—doubling down on their commitment to oil and gas and putting profits over people," Witt said. "The FTC is right to investigate Exxon's acquisition of Pioneer, which could raise prices at the pump and is aimed at keeping the U.S. reliant on fossil fuels."
A CAP report highlighted Tuesday that in hopes of continuing to profit off of the destruction of the planet, the fossil fuel industry is "undermining democratic functions to stem the tide of climate action" around the world.
That report and the heightened scrutiny of the possible merger come during the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28), where attendees are considering scientists' warnings that fossil fuels must be rapidly phased out to prevent more devastating global heating.
"This deal shows that Exxon is doubling down on fossil fuels and has no intention of moving towards clean energy," Jamie Henn, director of Fossil Free Media argued earlier this year. "Even after the hottest summer on record, Exxon is hellbent on driving the thermostat even higher."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Big Oil Stifling Democracy to Keep Burning Fossil Fuels
"The multinational $4 trillion fossil fuel industry has not only corrupted citizens' understanding of the climate crisis but also contributed to the erosion of democracy around the world."
Dec 05, 2023
As more people around the world demand an end to the fossil fuel era in the face of a worsening planetary emergency, Big Oil is "undermining democratic functions to stem the tide of climate action," a report published Tuesday revealed.
"Through a wide array of tactics, the multinational $4 trillion fossil fuel industry has not only corrupted citizens' understanding of the climate crisis but also contributed to the erosion of democracy around the world," the Center for American Progress (CAP) said in a new analysis.
CAP's Chris Martinez, Laura Kilbury, and Joel Martinez examined "what these tactics look like in practice and how they work against democratic systems to stifle climate action."
According to the authors, the three main democracy-destroying tactics are:
- Polluting democratic societies' information ecosystems with deception and false climate solutions;
- Using massive financial and lobbying influence over policymakers to defeat climate action and serve industry interests; and
- Directly undermining democratic rights and freedoms.
The fossil fuel industry is "stifling democratic rights through lawsuits, anti-protest laws, and voter suppression," the report states. Meanwhile, Big Oil greenwashes its harmful practices through direct advertising and via lobby groups like the American Petroleum Institute, which "regularly publicizes its member companies' investments in renewable energy and carbon reduction technologies."
"On closer inspection, however, industry's declared efforts to fight climate change fall woefully short, with oil and gas companies often devoting more attention to creating the appearance of working on climate solutions than actually developing them," the analysis contends.
Big Oil also uses the tactic of "astroturfing," or creating the appearance of grassroots support for policies and practices that are beneficial to the industry but harm the climate by perpetuating the fossil fuel era.
"The oil and gas industry's strategy is clear: Manipulate the levers of power to obstruct any climate policies that may reduce the world's reliance on fossil fuels," Martinez, CAP's associate director for domestic climate, said in a statement. "If left unchecked, these tactics stifle democratic rights, making governments more responsive to corporations than their own citizens."
The CAP analysis comes as a record 2,456 fossil fuel lobbyists flood the floors of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP28, in Dubai, peddling influence and false climate solutions like so-called "abated" emissions, biofuels, and hydrogen.
"In the case of the [United Arab Emirates'] COP28 presidency, the industry capture of these spaces is complete, with a state-backed fossil fuel company threatening to interfere with multilateral climate progress at the highest and most consequential level," the report states, referring to summit president Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber, who is also the CEO of the UAE's national oil firm—and who has reportedly been using the run-up to the conference to pursue new fossil fuel deals.
"As warning lights of democratic backsliding strobe across the world and endanger critical efforts to address the climate crisis," the analysis adds, "the twin threat of the fossil fuel industry's attacks on climate action and the democratic functions necessary to take that action must not be ignored."
Keep ReadingShow Less
13 Dems Oppose Resolution Conflating Anti-Zionism and Antisemitism
"This extreme and cynical Republican resolution does nothing to combat antisemitism," said Rep. Ilhan Omar, stressing the importance of "legitimate criticism" of the Israeli government and its war on Gaza.
Dec 05, 2023
As Israel continued to wage what critics are calling a genocidal war on the Gaza Strip, just 13 U.S. House Democrats and one Republican on Tuesday voted against a GOP resolution that conflates anti-Zionism and antisemitism.
House Resolution 894 passed with support from 95 Democrats and 216 Republicans, including its sponsors, Reps. David Kustoff (Tenn.) and Max Miller (Ohio), who are both Jewish. Almost as many Democrats—92—voted present.
The resolution, which embraces the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's controversial working definition of antisemitism, was widely condemned by progressive and Jewish groups this week ahead of the vote.
Republican Congressman Thomas Massie (Ky.) joined the 13 Democrats who opposed H.Res. 894: Reps. Jamaal Bowman (N.Y.), Cori Bush (Mo.), Gerry Connolly (Va.), Jesús "Chuy" GarcÃa (Ill.), Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Summer Lee (Pa.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.).
"This extreme and cynical Republican resolution does nothing to combat antisemitism, relies on a definition that conflates criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism, paints critics of the Israeli government as antisemites, and falsely states that anti-Zionism is antisemitism," Omar said in a statement about her vote. "We must stand against any attempt to define legitimate criticism of this war and the government perpetrating it as antisemitism."
According to The Hill, Bowman said after the vote that while he "strongly condemn[s] antisemitism and hate in all of its forms," he voted against H.Res. 894 because "it fuels division and violence, conflates criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism, and ignores one of the greatest threats to the Jewish community, white nationalism."
Bowman and Omar are among the House progressives facing serious primary challenges for the next cycle, in part because of their criticism of the Israeli government and its war on Gaza that has killed nearly 16,000 Palestinians in under two months.
They joined with Bush, Lee, Massie, Ocasio-Cortez, Ramirez, Tlaib, and Reps. André Carson (D-Ind.) and Al Green (D-Texas) in October to oppose a bipartisan resolution, which declared that the House unconditionally "stands with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war launched by Hamas and other terrorists," and did not mention Palestinian suffering.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular