United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: The Great Marijuana Debate -- Your Life May Depend on it
Source:
Blacklisted News
URL Source: http://www.blacklistednews.com/The_ ... d_on_it/59195/0/38/38/Y/M.html
Published: Jun 17, 2017
Author: Patrick J McShay
Post Date: 2017-06-18 12:51:27 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 2078
Comments: 15
"Good people don't smoke Marijuana" - *Attorney General Jeff Sessions Mr Sessions has always claimed to be a strong supporter of states rights, as has Trump. Trump said on the campaign trail that Marijuana was a states rights issue, and that as President it would remain so. Earlier this year Sessions told members of Congress that he would not be going after States with legal Cannabis. That has apparently changed. Sessions recently sent a letter to Congress, In which he urged members not to renew the 2014 Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, which prevents the Department of Justice from spending federal funds to interfere with state laws on the use, distribution, possession or cultivation of Cannabis. Despite Sessions claim as a warrior for states rights and the will of the people, he is linking Medical Cannabis to the Opioid crisis, and says Americans need to just say no, or else. Sessions says, "the department must be in a position to combat transnational drug organizations and dangerous drug traffickers who threaten American lives." I'm not sure Mr Sessions understands how states with legal medical or recreational Cannabis operate. Sessions claims he needs prosecutorial powers, because Marijuana is a horrible drug, fueling a " historic drug epidemic," and apparently he wants to save us from ourselves. After Sessions run for the Senate in 1996, it was found that RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company had sent the campaign so much money that they they had exceeded the legal limit, and had had to send some back. Sessions has also received tens of thousands of dollars from the alcohol industry over the years. The National Academy of Sciences and Medicine has rejected the notion that Marijuana is a gateway to other illicit drugs, so why does Sessions keep saying it. All of his rhetoric sounds like some post "Reefer Madness", cold war era political stooge, owned by big alcohol, big Pharma and the private prison industry. Instead the evidence shows that people are substituting Marijuana for Opioids to manage their pain, with much lower rates of overdoses in states that allow Medical Marijuana. Veterans are turning to Cannabis to treat their PTSD, and just saying no to government approved pharmaceuticals. Another Sessions talking point is crime associated with Pot. A year after legalization, crime in Colorado was down across the board. In Jeff Sessions home state of Alabama, an April, 2017 poll showed 86% of respondents are in favor of legalizing Marijuana for recreational use. 92% said they believe alcohol to be worse than Pot. As of 2016, Alabama law didn't allow initiatives or referendums. The Alabama Legislature recently voted down "Carly's Bill", that would have legalized the use of CBD Oil, that contains little or no THC. How, in this age of the internet can politicians be so out of touch? Mr Sessions doesn't believe that Marijuana has any medicinal value at all, but US Patent # 6630507 was recently granted to the Department of Health and Human Services. Attorney Sam Mendez, an intellectual property and public policy Lawyer, says it shows a certain amount of hypocrisy from a government that still maintains Cannabis has no medicinal value. If Trump wants to assure victory in 4 years he should legalize Marijuana and send Sessions back to 1950 where he belongs This must please Sessions and his pals in the private prison industry. Some of Trump and Session's biggest supporters for the Presidency were for profit prison operators. One of the few things Obama got right was ordering the Justice Department to begin phasing out private prison contracts. Recently, private prison industry giant GEO, and another private prison operator Core Civic, each gave $250K to the Trump campaign. In Sessions financial filing dated December 23, 2016, he disclosed numerous accounts with Vanguard Investments, which owns more private prison stock than any other investment management company. In ancient Egypt and India Cannabis was used to treat ailments like Rheumatism, Gout, Glaucoma, Nausea, Dysentery, joint pain and labor pains among others. Siddhartha Gautama, the founder of Buddhism, was said to have lived for 6 years on Hemp seeds alone. When Napoleon's Army left Egypt they took Cannabis with them back to Europe, and over a hundred years ago you could buy Cannabis Oil from the Sears Catalog. An early seventies Harvard Study showed that Cannabis killed Cancer Cells, but because of the ongoing demonization of Pot, further study was always discouraged. Harvard Professor, Lester Grinspoon has studied Cannabis and it's effects for 50 years, and was good friends with astrophysicist and avid Pot smoker, Carl Sagan. Grinspoon attests that Cannabis is non toxic, non addictive and does not cause psychosis or schizophrenia, as some have claimed. This is the dangerous drug Mr Sessions and his ilk are trying to save us from? She found that people were having success with Cannabis Oil for seizures, as well as Cancer treatment. Because she lives in a state where Cannabis is illegal, she and her husband planned to stay with their adult daughter in California for the 90 days of Cannabis Oil treatment. After the 90 days of treatment, she went back for her next MRI. While the larger tumor was still there, it looked smaller, and the smaller tumor was gone. Encouraged, she continued her treatment, increasing her tolerance and her dosage. After 8 months of treatment, her doctors were amazed. Her MRI was reviewed by her Oncologist, a leading Radiologist and a renowned Brain Surgeon, and it was discovered the tumor was completely gone. Today Kelly is Cancer free, and while diet and exercise were part of her treatment, Kelly credits Cannabis Oil with her recovery. When Doug's wife suggested Cannabis Oil, he rejected the idea at first, but came around when she threatened to leave him. He had a home in Colorado, and was able to obtain the oil with no problem. He was amazed at how quickly the oil began working. His COPD is in remission, and he has become an advocate for Medical Marijuana legalization. New VA Secretary David Shulkin in an interview this week said, he believes Marijuana could help veterans with PTSD. Unfortunately he must follow federal law, and Sessions is making progress in this area impossible. Trump vowed to help veterans, and instead he is doing grave damage. 22 vets a month kill themselves and many others are being arrested for treating their PTSD with Cannabis in states where it is still illegal. Look up the Rick Simpson Protocol on youtube and learn how to safely make the oil at home. We have to make it accessible to people in every state. Cannabis is a God given wonder drug that is being suppressed by imbecilic politico's in Washington. Cancer rates are on the rise and our options for survival should not be limited by ignorant politicians and fussy fundamentalists like Attorney General, Jeff Sessions 
"Mr Sessions stands against an overwhelming majority of Americans and even, sadly, against veterans and other people who we now know conclusively are helped dramatically by Medical Marijuana". - *Congressman Dana Rohrabacher
"Medical Marijuana in it's natural form is one of the safest, therapeutically active substances known to man."- *DEA Judge Francis Young- 1988
If I didn't know better, after reading Attorney General Jeff Sessions uneducated and incredibly ignorant views on the issue of Marijuana legalization, whether medical or recreational, I would have thought that he'd had a close friend or family member who had died of a Marijuana overdose. But I do know better, and so do most Americans. Does Jeff Sessions know better? Sadly, I'm not sure he does.
Eight States have legalized recreational use of Marijuana, and 29 States have some form of Medical Marijuana laws on the books. Mr Sessions, who has been a shill for big Tobacco, has argued that "Marijuana is only slightly worse than Heroin."
Mr Sessions crusade against legal Cannabis isn't just disingenuous, it is cruel and irresponsible. Sessions said recently that he is surprised that more Americans aren't embracing his stance on weed. He should know that a recent Quinnipiac poll showed 94% of respondents approve of doctor prescribed Pot. That is the highest number yet in a poll of this kind.
Lee Carroll Brooker is a 77 year old Alabama resident, and a disabled veteran. Bowman was growing weed on land owned by his son, to deal with chronic pain, and to get off of his doctor prescribed, and Jeff Sessions approved drugs . Bowman was arrested in 2014 and sentenced to a mandatory life sentence for growing weed. His son was also arrested, and received a sentence of 5 years probation. Because Bowman had prior convictions in the state decades ago, he qualified for the mandatory life sentence, even though there was no evidence he was selling the weed. In April, 2016, the Supreme Court refused to hear Bowman's appeal of this harsh sentence.
Marijuana has always been characterized as dangerous, unhealthy and destructive, despite a long history of medicinal efficacy. During the reign of Chinese Emperor Shen Nung, 5000 years ago, Marijuana was used as medicine. A 3700 year old Egyptian papyrus contained medical references to Marijuana and it's healing properties. Around 1450 BC holy anointing oil was described in the original Hebrew version of Exodus. It detailed how Cannabis oil was mixed into jars of Olive oil along with fragrant herbs and used as anointing oil. Cannabis oil was found on the mummy of King Ramses II, who died in 1213 BC.
Kelly Hauf was diagnosed in 1990 with 2 tumors, one smaller, and a larger one on the frontal lobe of her brain. Surgery was successfully performed and neither Chemotherapy nor radiation were recommended. It was decided that they would monitor her with an MRI every 3 months. The tumor did return, and her surgeon recommended 4 to 6 months of Chemotherapy. The Chemo didn't work, and another surgery would have to be scheduled. she was prescribed anti seizure medication, but because of problems with the medication, she looked for an alternative.
Doug Bench is a retired former judge from Florida. During his time as a judge, Bench sentenced 311 Marijuana offenders to jail. When he was diagnosed with Stage 4 COPD, he knew his options were limited. Modern medicine offers no hope for those with COPD. His doctor gave him 2 to 3 years to live, and told him his condition would continue to worsen.
One of the pioneers of Medical Marijuana in the state of Oregon, Dr Phil Leveque, has prescribed Cannabis for over 5000 patients. He stated, "Marijuana is one of the best bronchodilators, much better than any other class of drug. For respiratory diseases like Asthma and COPD Marijuana can be life saving." Dr Leveque also nixed the notion that smoking Marijuana was bad for the lungs, claiming Cannabinoids are beneficial to Lung Tissue, and smoking Pot can actually improve Lung function.
There are thousands of these stories out there. Cannabis Oil is helping people with a number of serious and life threatening maladies. Recent studies have shown that Cannabis Oil may slow the progression of Alzheimer's, and the oil is being used to treat Autistic children with incredible success. Michael J Fox posted a testimonial on youtube about how Cannabis Oil has helped alleviate his symptoms from Parkinson's Disease. Cannabis Oil must be made available to everyone who needs it.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
#3. To: Deckard (#0)
This is not from a ruling of the DEA, and court, or any Federal Article III judge. It comes from a rejected recommended ruling of an Administrative Law Judge. DEA Judge Francis Young is a deliberately misleading title. The correct term would be ALJ Francis Young, the ALJ standing for Administrative Law Judge. That he issued a recommended ruling is indicative that he lacked authority to issue the rescheduling ruling at issue. The caption is: Drug Enforcement Administration In the matter of MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION Docket No. 86-22 OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE At 2-3, this Recommended Ruling states, A three-day hearing was held at DEA2 by Administrative Law Judge Lewis Parker in January 1975. The judge found in NORML's favor on several issues but the Acting Administrator of DEA entered a final order denying NORML's petition "in all respects." NORML again petitioned the court for review. Finding fault [3] with DEA's final order the court again remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion. NORML v. DEA. 182 U.S. App. D.C. 114. 559 F.2d 735 (1977). The Court directed the then-Acting Administrator of DEA to refer NORML's petition to the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) for findings and thereafter to comply with the rulemaking procedures outlined in the Act at 21 U.S.C. § 811 (a) and (b). On remand the Administrator of DEA referred NORML's petition to HEW for scientific and medical evaluation. On June 4, 1979 the Secretary of HEW advised the Administrator of the results of the HEW evaluation and recommended that marijuana remain in Schedule I. Without holding any further hearing the Administrator of DEA proceeded to issue a final order ten days later denying NORML's petition and declining to initiate proceedings to transfer marijuana from Schedule I. 44 Fed. Reg. 36123 (1979)~ NORML went back-to the Court of Appeals. When the case was called for oral argument there was discussion of the then-present status of the matter. DEA had moved for a partial remand. The court found that "reconsideration of all the issues in this case would be appropriate" and again remanded it to DEA, observing: "We regrettably find it necessary to remind respondents [DEA and HEW] of an agency's obligation on remand not to 'do anything which is contrary to either the letter or spirit of the mandate construed in the light of the opinion of [the] court deciding the case.'" (Citations omitted.) NORML v. DEA. et al., No. 79-1660. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, unpublished order filed October 16, 1980. DEA was directed to refer all the substances at issue to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), successor agency to HEW for scien- [4] tific and medical findings and recommendations on scheduling. DEA did so and HHS has responded. In a letter dated April 1, 1986 the then-Acting Deputy Administrator of DEA requested this administrative law judge to commence hearing procedures as to the proposed rescheduling of marijuana and its components. At 65: The Act, at 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(C), requires that marijuana be retained in Schedule I if "[t]here is a lack of accepted safety for use of [it] under medical supervision." If there is no lack of such safety, if it is accepted that this substance can be used with safety under medical supervision, then it is unreasonable to keep it in Schedule I. Again we must ask - "accepted" by whom? Well, shucks, he made believe the statute is not crystal clear and he does not know who the medical science must be accepted by. Let me help a brother out. 21 U.S.C. 811(b) states: The Attorney General shall, before initiating proceedings under subsection (a) of this section to control a drug or other substance or to remove a drug or other substance entirely from the schedules, and after gathering the necessary data, request from the Secretary a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance. In making such evaluation and recommendations, the Secretary shall consider the factors listed in paragraphs (2), (3), (6), (7), and (8) of subsection (c) of this section and any scientific or medical considerations involved in paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) of such subsection. The recommendations of the Secretary shall include recommendations with respect to the appropriate schedule, if any, under which such drug or other substance should be listed. The evaluation and the recommendations of the Secretary shall be made in writing and submitted to the Attorney General within a reasonable time. The recommendations of the Secretary to the Attorney General shall be binding on the Attorney General as to such scientific and medical matters, and if the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance. If the Attorney General determines that these facts and all other relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse such as to warrant control or substantial evidence that the drug or other substance should be removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings for control or removal, as the case may be, under subsection (a) of this section. The Secretary referred to is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The ALJ wrote at pp. 3-4, [4] tific and medical findings and recommendations on scheduling. DEA did so and HHS has responded. Why did he think the DEA was directed top refer all the substances to DHHS for scientific and medical findings and recommendations? While the medical findings and recommendations are binding upon the Attorney General, and he must schedule in accordance with the recommendations of DHHS, in his 69-page epiphany, ALJ Francis Young never quite got around to mentioning whatever DHHS recommended. Rather he spends page after page reciting anecdotal tales from everybody but DHHS. Needless to say, this pile of crap went nowhere. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/15/1131/536307/ See, e.g., Alliance for Cannabis Thearpeutics, Petitioner, v. Drug Enforcement Administration, Respondent; Physicians Association for AIDS Care and the Lymphoma Foundation of Amewrica, Intervenors; and DRUG POLICY FOUNDATION and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, Petitioners v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, Respondent; Nos. 92-1168, 92-1179, 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994), decided Feb. 18, 1994. At 1132 - 1137: The Controlled Substances Act ("CSA") places hazardous drugs in five categories, or schedules, which impose varying restrictions on access to the drugs. See 21 U.S.C. § 812 (1988). Marijuana is assigned by statute to Schedule I, the most restrictive of these. See id. Schedule I drugs may be obtained and used lawfully only by doctors who submit a detailed research protocol for approval by the Food and Drug Administration and who agree to abide by strict recordkeeping and storage rules. See 21 C.F.R. Secs. 1301.33, 1301.42. The CSA allows the Attorney General to reschedule a drug if he finds that it does not meet the criteria for the schedule to which it has been assigned. 21 U.S.C. § 811(a). The Attorney General has delegated this authority to the Administrator. See 28 C.F.R. Sec. 0.100(b). In rescheduling a drug, the Administrator must consider, inter alia, "[s]cientific evidence of [the drug's] pharmacological effect, if known," and " [t]he state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance." 21 U.S.C. § 811(c) (2), (3). A drug is placed in Schedule I if (1) it "has a high potential for abuse," (2) it has "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," and (3) " [t]here is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug ... under medical supervision." 21 U.S.C. § 812(b) (1) (1988) (emphasis added). The Schedule II criteria are somewhat different: (1) the drug "has a high potential for abuse," (2) it "has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions," and (3) " [a]buse of the drug ... may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence." 21 U.S.C. § 812(b) (2) (1988) (emphasis added). Petitioners' central claim is that the Administrator misinterpreted the language italicized above. This is the latest chapter in petitioners' efforts to move marijuana into a less restrictive CSA schedule. They claim that marijuana is misclassified because it has been shown to serve various medicinal purposes. Specifically, they contend that marijuana alleviates some side effects of chemotherapy in cancer patients, aids in the treatment of glaucoma, an eye disease, and reduces muscle spasticity in patients suffering from multiple sclerosis and other maladies of the central nervous system. In support of these contentions, they introduced affidavits and testimony of a number of patients and practicing physicians who insist that, in their experience, marijuana has proven safe and effective. The petition to reschedule marijuana was first filed in 1972 and has been before this court on four prior occasions--National Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Ingersoll, 497 F.2d 654 (D.C. Cir. 1974); National Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 559 F.2d 735 (D.C. Cir. 1977); National Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v. Drug Enforcement Admin. & Dep't of Health Education & Welfare, No. 79-1660 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 16, 1980); and most recently, ACT, 930 F.2d 936 (D.C. Cir. 1991). ACT is the only part of this history we need recount. In ACT, the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics ("Alliance") and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws ("NORML") argued that the Administrator's refusal to reschedule marijuana rested on an unreasonable interpretation of the statutory phrase, "currently accepted medical use." [304 U.S.App.D.C. 403] 930 F.2d at 939; see 21 U.S.C. §§ 812(b) (1) (B), (2) (B). In a scheduling proceeding involving another drug, the Administrator determined that " [t]he characteristics of a drug or other substance with an accepted medical use" include: (2) the toxicology and pharmacology of the substance in animals; (3) establishment of its effectiveness in humans through scientifically designed clinical trials; (4) general availability of the substance and information regarding the substance and its use; (5) recognition of its clinical use in generally accepted pharmacopeia, medical references, journals or textbooks; (6) specific indications for the treatment of recognized disorders; (7) recognition of the use of the substance by organizations or associations of physicians; and (8) recognition and use of the substance by a substantial segment of the medical practitioners in the United States. 53 Fed.Reg. 5,156, 5,157-58 (Feb. 22, 1988). Applying these criteria to the petition to reschedule marijuana, the Administrator found on December 29, 1989, that marijuana had no currently accepted medical use and thus had to remain in Schedule I. 54 Fed.Reg. 53,767, 53,768 (1989). The eight-factor test had been published in the Federal Register on February 22, 1988, 17 days after the close of the evidence but before the oral arguments to the administrative law judge in the marijuana rescheduling proceedings. On reviewing the Administrator's decision, we found the eight-factor test for determining whether a drug had a "currently accepted medical use" to be "in the main acceptable." ACT, 930 F.2d at 937. We noted the ambiguity of the phrase and the dearth of legislative history on point and deferred to the Administrator's interpretation as reasonable. Id. at 939 (citing Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 843-45, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 2782-83, 81 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1984) (court may not substitute its own construction of ambiguous statutory provision for reasonable interpretation by agency of statute entrusted to its administration)). We were troubled, however, by three of the eight criteria and remanded the case "for an explanation as to how [these] had been utilized by the Administrator in reaching his decision." Id. at 940. In particular, we were concerned over the apparent impossibility of meeting the fourth, fifth, and eighth criteria, all of which assumed an availability of marijuana for medical purposes that was prohibited by Schedule I. On March 26, 1992, the current Administrator issued the order that is the subject of this appeal. See 57 Fed.Reg. 10,499 (Mar. 26, 1992) ("Final Order"). He concluded, on remand, that his predecessor had not in fact relied on two of the three "impossible" criteria; he explained the third; and, after applying new criteria, he again denied the petition to reschedule marijuana. Id. at 10,508. II. DISCUSSION A. Law of the Case [1] We held, in ACT, that the Administrator's interpretation of the CSA was reasonable. Under the "law of the case" doctrine, appellate courts do not reconsider matters resolved on a prior appeal in the same proceeding. 18 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure Sec. 4478 at 788 (1981). The doctrine is not a jurisdictional limitation; rather, it "merely expresses the practice of courts generally to refuse to reopen what has been decided...." Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U.S. 436, 444, 32 S. Ct. 739, 740, 56 L. Ed. 1152 (1912). Thus, courts will reconsider previously decided questions in such exceptional cases as those in which there has been an intervening change of controlling law, or new evidence has surfaced, or the previous disposition has resulted in clear error or manifest injustice. 18 Wright & Miller, Sec. 4478 at 790. [2] Petitioners do not contend that any of these exceptions apply here. Instead, they assert that in ACT we gave only cursory attention to the statutory interpretation argument whereas, in their view, the law of the [304 U.S.App.D.C. 404] case doctrine applies only where the prior appeal has analyzed an issue at length. We disagree on both counts. First, our treatment of the statutory interpretation question was entirely adequate. Second, even summarily treated issues become the law of the case. In Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817, 108 S. Ct. 2166, 2178, 100 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1988), the Supreme Court noted: "That the Federal Circuit did not explicate its rationale is irrelevant, for the law of the case turns on whether a court previously 'decide [d] upon a rule of law'--which the Federal Circuit necessarily did--not on whether, or how well, it explained the decision." In ACT, we decided that it was not "an unreasonable application of the statutory phrase [for the Administrator] to emphasize the lack of exact scientific knowledge as to the chemical effects of the drug's elements." 930 F.2d at 939. As noted above, our only concern, in ACT, was with three of the standards adopted by the Administrator and his possible reliance on them. As a consequence, in remanding the case, we asked him to explain how his decision had been affected by those standards. In the Final Order, the present Administrator found that two of these criteria--the "general availability of the substance" and the "use of the substance by a substantial segment of ... medical practitioners"--played no role in his predecessor's decision. See 57 Fed.Reg. at 10,507. [3] Further, the Administrator found that his predecessor's conclusion that marijuana failed to meet the third of the questioned criteria--"recognition of [the drug's] clinical use in generally accepted pharmacopeia"--rested on a determination that marijuana lacked a known, reproducible chemistry. See id. We had objected to the "recognition of clinical use" standard only because it seemed to require widespread therapeutic use of the drug--an impossibility for Schedule I substances. See ACT, 930 F.2d at 940. The Administrator's interpretation of that criterion meets our objection. The Final Order discards the earlier formulation and applies a new five-part test for determining whether a drug is in "currently accepted medical use": (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. 57 Fed.Reg. at 10,506. None of these criteria is impossible for a Schedule I drug to meet; in fact, petitioners concede in their briefs that the new standard has corrected the flaws we identified in ACT. B. Petitioners' Other Arguments Petitioners make two additional arguments: (1) They assert that they were deprived of the opportunity to conform their evidentiary submissions to the governing legal standard because the previous Administrator had failed to publish the eight-factor test on which he relied, as required by the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (1) (D), until two weeks after the close of the evidence in the rescheduling proceeding; and (2) they claim that the Administrator's ruling was not the product of reasoned decisionmaking because he was biased and ignored the record. While Alliance and NORML had apparently raised these issues in ACT, we did not expressly address them; nor did we decide them by necessary implication because our limited remand in ACT could have reflected a decision to postpone consideration of these remaining arguments. Accordingly, we conclude that ACT did not establish the law of the case as to these issues. See Bouchet v. Nat'l Urban League, 730 F.2d 799, 806 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (" [O]nly when an issue not expressly addressed must have been decided by 'necessary implication' will the [law of the case] doctrine be applied...."). 1. The FOIA Claim [4] Section 552(a) (1) of FOIA provides in relevant part: [304 U.S.App.D.C. 405] Each agency shall separately state and currently publish in the Federal Register for the guidance of the public-- . . . . . (D) ... statements of general policy or interpretations of general applicability formulated and adopted by the agency.... . . . . . Except to the extent that a person has actual and timely notice of the terms thereof, a person may not in any manner ... be adversely affected by [ ] a matter required to be published in the Federal Register and not so published. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a) (1) (emphasis added). This provision requires agencies to set out in advance the legal standards that will be applied so that "actions can be guided, and strategies planned." Northern Calif. Pwr. Agency v. Morton, 396 F. Supp. 1187, 1191 (D.D.C.), aff'd mem. sub. nom. Northern Calif. Pwr. Agency v. Kleppe, 539 F.2d 243 (D.C. Cir. 1976). To establish a claim under the statute, however, the litigant must show that "he was adversely affected by a lack of publication or that he would have been able to pursue an alternative course of conduct" had the information been published. Zaharakis v. Heckler, 744 F.2d 711, 714 (9th Cir. 1984). [5] Petitioners argue that the Administrator violated the statute by using the eight-factor test to evaluate the evidence presented in the marijuana rescheduling petition. As the test was not published until 17 days after the close of the evidence, they contend that they were "adversely affected" by the Administrator's reliance on the test because they had no opportunity to tailor their evidence to meet its requirements. Accordingly, they ask us to remand the case to the Administrator with instructions to reopen the record for the submission of new evidence. We decline to do so because petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they have in fact been adversely affected by the lack of notice. During the nearly two years between the publication of the eight-factor test on February 22, 1988, and the Administrator's ruling on December 29, 1989, petitioners never sought to reopen the record. As parties to an important controversy, they had a responsibility to proffer any evidence that was made newly relevant by the adoption of the criteria. Their failure to do so suggests either that they were satisfied that the evidence already presented would meet the test or that they had no further evidence to offer. Thus, we have no reason to believe that petitioners would have pursued an "alternative course of conduct" had the test been published earlier. Zaharakis, 744 F.2d at 714. Furthermore, we do not agree that McLouth Steel Products v. Thomas, 838 F.2d 1317 (D.C. Cir. 1988), supports their position. That case is distinguishable. McLouth arose in the context of a rulemaking in which an agency failed to identify adequately a key standard in its notice of proposed rulemaking in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 553. Unlike petitioners, the McLouth challengers knew the governing legal standard by the time they were called on to submit evidence; their complaint was that they had not had a chance to challenge the standard at the time it was adopted. 838 F.2d at 1322-23. We held that the challengers were not required to demonstrate that the failure of notice had caused "specific prejudice" because "we cannot say with certainty whether petitioners' comments would have had some effect [on the adoption of the standard] if they had been considered when the issue was open." Id. at 1323-24. Here, petitioners' challenge is not to the standard but to their claimed inability to respond to it. 2. The Reasoned Decisionmaking Claim In ACT, Alliance and NORML argued that the prior Administrator had been biased and ignored the record. On this appeal, petitioners repeat these claims and accuse his successor of the same errors. We need not consider whether the previous Administrator's ruling stemmed from reasoned decisionmaking, however, because we remanded it to the agency. We thus confine our review to the current Administrator's treatment of the record in the Final Order. [6] In support of their bias claim, petitioners point to what they describe as a long history of the Drug Enforcement Administration's [304 U.S.App.D.C. 406] anti-marijuana prejudice as evidenced by this court's need to remand their petition on four occasions and what they describe as the prior Administrator's "unusually strident decision" rejecting the administrative law judge's recommendation that the drug be rescheduled. They also cite various statements by the present Administrator in the Final Order as evidence of a lack of objectivity. See, e.g., 57 Fed.Reg. at 10,502 ("The only favorable evidence that could be found by [petitioners] consists of stories by marijuana users"); id. ("[s]ick people are not objective scientific observers, especially when it comes to their own health."); id. at 10,503 ("Sick men, women and children can be fooled by these claims and experiment with the drug.... It is a cruel hoax to offer false hope to desperately ill people."). [7] We are not impressed. The need to remand a case several times is not evidence per se of agency prejudice. Nor do we think the statements cited by petitioners show that the Administrator was unfair, especially when considered in the context of a reasonable preference for rigorous scientific proof over anecdotal evidence, even when reported by respected physicians. [8] Moreover, our review of the record convinces us that the Administrator's findings are supported by substantial evidence. See 21 U.S.C. § 877 (1988) (substantial evidence standard applies to findings of fact in rescheduling proceedings). The Final Order canvasses the record at length. It recites the testimony of numerous experts that marijuana's medicinal value has never been proven in sound scientific studies. The Administrator reasonably accorded more weight to the opinions of these experts than to the anecdotal testimony of laymen and doctors on which petitioners relied. The Administrator noted that" Final Order, 57 Fed.Reg. at 10,502-03. These findings are consistent with the view that only rigorous scientific proof can satisfy the CSA's "currently accepted medical use" requirement. Id. at 10,500. For the foregoing reasons, the petitions for review are Denied.
Piss off spam-bot. You're a real tool.
Have a large helping of your spam. Search well for the legally mandatory recommendation of DHHS to changed the scheduling of marijuana. Find where DHHS ever found that marijuana has a generally accepted medical use.
Eat a buffet of dicks spam-bot.
More spam? What a fucktard!
#15. To: Deckard (#14)
Yes you may. 81 Fed Reg No 156 (12 Aug 2016) 53668-53766, Proposed Marijuana Rules Denial, Docket DEA-426 by nolu chan on Scribd
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest "Medical Marijuana in it's natural form is one of the safest, therapeutically active substances known to man."- *DEA Judge Francis Young- 1988
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[2]
Discussion
(b) Evaluation of drugs and other substances
DEA was directed to refer all the substances at issue to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), successor agency to HEW for scien-
The Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics, the Drug Policy Foundation, and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana [304 U.S.App.D.C. 402] Laws petition for review of a final order of the Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration declining to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act. Rescheduling to Schedule II would permit doctors to prescribe marijuana for therapeutic purposes. Petitioners' central claim is that the Administrator's order rests on an unreasonable interpretation of the statute. Because our previous disposition of this matter in Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 930 F.2d 936 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ("ACT") constitutes the law of the case, we decline to reconsider this claim. We also find that the Administrator satisfied ACT's mandate on remand and that petitioners' other claims lack merit.
(1) scientifically determined and accepted knowledge of its chemistry;
[w]ith one exception, none of [these doctors] could identify under oath the scientific studies they swore they relied on. Only one had enough knowledge to discuss the scientific technicalities involved. Eventually, each one admitted he was basing his opinion on anecdotal evidence, on stories he heard from patients, and on his impressions about the drug.
#6. To: nolu chan (#3)
(Edited)
DEA Judge Francis Young is a deliberately misleading title. The correct term would be ALJ Francis Young, the ALJ standing for Administrative Law Judge.
#10. To: Deckard (#6)
#12. To: nolu chan (#10)
#13. To: Deckard (#12)
#14. To: nolu chan (#13)
Replies to Comment # 14. Thank you Sir! May I have another?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 14.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]