"The federal government has historically referred to this category as the “most dangerous” group of substances, including drugs like heroin and bath salts."

Here we f**king go again. Set up that "dangerous" -- no, "most dangerous" -- strawman and knock him down!

"and we'll hopefully develop deeper insights into the risks and the benefits of cannabis use."

Benefits, my ass. There isn't one thing that cannabis does that 10 other FDA- approved drugs do better.

And when researchers isolate, purify and concentrate one cannabinoid chemical compound found in marijuana and state that it may be helpful in treating "X" disease, suddenly a million dopers declare they have "X" disease and interpret that as a green light to smoke weed.

And when researchers isolate, purify and concentrate one cannabinoid chemical compound found in marijuana and state that it may be helpful in treating "X" disease, suddenly a million dopers declare they have "X" disease and interpret that as a green light to smoke weed.

bingo!

Set up that "dangerous" -- no, "most dangerous" -- strawman and knock him down!

Good grief - you are a fucking idiot.

There isn't one thing that cannabis does that 10 other FDA- approved drugs do better.

Which Big-pharma company do you work for shill?

Here we f**king go again. Set up that "dangerous" -- no, "most dangerous" -- strawman and knock him down!

Back to that lie? "Schedule I drugs are considered the most dangerous class of drugs" - https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml

There isn't one thing that cannabis does that 10 other FDA- approved drugs [don't] do better.

For every single patient?

Back to that lie?

He can't help himself.

"Schedule I drugs are considered the most dangerous class of drugs"

That fact is even linked in the first paragraph of the article, and whitey still can't admit it.

There isn't one thing that cannabis does that 10 other FDA- approved drugs do better.

Do you mean to say that one must take 10 different FDA approved drugs to achieve what Cannabis can do alone? It's often the case where a cocktail of FDA drugs is prescribed for a single condition.

Many people, namely AIDS and cancer patients, would disagree. FDA approved drugs that would substitute for Cannabis often come with very unpleasant side effects.

There was an author named Peter McWilliams, who was a strong advocate for medical marijuana. He had, I think, cancer and took cannabis as part of his treatment. He was arrested and charged. Denied any permission by the court to mention his medical condition to the jury, he took a plea to stay out of jail. Forced to live with his mother, his mother's house was on bond, forfeited if he ever tested positive for Cannabis. So he stayed away from it.

He died soon after, choking one night after becoming nauseous, which is one thing Cannabis would have prevented.

Yes, it's only one person and one example. Feel free to call him scum that should never have lived in the first place.

"Schedule I drugs are considered the most dangerous class of drugs"

That fact is even linked in the first paragraph of the article, and whitey still can't admit it.

I notice that link is to a web.archive.org page - turns out that between the 18th and the 19th of this month the DEA removed that statement from their page. Hilarious!

...turns out that between the 18th and the 19th of this month the DEA removed that statement from their page. Hilarious!

Gee - now why would they go and do that?

No wonder whitey is confused.

"Do you mean to say that one must take 10 different FDA approved drugs to achieve what Cannabis can do alone?"

Nope. Pick one.

"Yes, it's only one person and one example."

Uh- huh. Which is why I ignore anecdotal stories.

"Gee - now why would they go and do that?"

Probably for the same reason they no longer promote the movie Reefer Madness. Doesn't stop you though.

"https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml"

Hmmmm. Nothing on your link about "most dangerous".

On August 11th, the Drug Enforcement Administration announced its decision to keep marijuana classified as a Schedule I drug. The federal government has historically referred to this category as the “most dangerous” group of substances, including drugs like heroin and bath salts.

What DEA really announce: HHS, not DEA, evaluates for medical use. An international treaty requires maintaining marijuana as a scheduled drug. Congress established only one schedule, schedule I, for drugs of abuse with “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” and “lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.” 21 U.S.C. 812(b).

In accordance with the CSA scheduling provisions, after gathering the necessary data, DEA requested a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS concluded that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use in the United States, and lacks an acceptable level of safety for use even under medical supervision. Therefore, HHS recommended that marijuana remain in schedule I. The scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation that HHS submitted to DEA is attached hereto. Based on the HHS evaluation and all other relevant data, DEA has concluded that there is no substantial evidence that marijuana should be removed from schedule I. A document prepared by DEA addressing these materials in detail also is attached hereto. In short, marijuana continues to meet the criteria for schedule I control under the CSA because:

1) Marijuana has a high potential for abuse. The HHS evaluation and the additional data gathered by DEA show that marijuana has a high potential for abuse.

2) Marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Based on the established five-part test for making such determination, marijuana has no ‘‘currently accepted medical use’’ because: As detailed in the HHS evaluation, the drug’s chemistry is not known and reproducible; there are no adequate safety studies; there are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts; and the scientific evidence is not widely available.

3) Marijuana lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision. At present, there are no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved marijuana products, nor is marijuana under a New Drug Application (NDA) evaluation at the FDA for any indication. The HHS evaluation states that marijuana does not have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. At this time, the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy.

The statutory mandate of 21 U.S.C. 812(b) is dispositive. Congress established only one schedule, schedule I, for drugs of abuse with “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” and “lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.” 21 U.S.C. 812(b).

Although the HHS evaluation and all other relevant data lead to the conclusion that marijuana must remain in schedule I, it should also be noted that, in view of United States obligations under international drug control treaties, marijuana cannot be placed in a schedule less restrictive than schedule II. This is explained in detail in the accompanying document titled "Preliminary Note Regarding Treaty Considerations."

Accordingly, and as set forth in detail in the accompanying HHS and DEA documents, there is no statutory basis under the CSA for DEA to grant your petition to initiate rulemaking proceedings to reschedule marijuana. Your petition is, therefore, hereby denied.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Preliminary Note Regarding Treaty Considerations

As the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) recognizes, the United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 (referred to here as the Single Convention or the treaty). 21 U.S.C. 801(7). Parties to the Single Convention are obligated to maintain various control provisions related to the drugs that are covered by the treaty. Many of the provisions of the CSA were enacted by Congress for the specific purpose of ensuring U.S. compliance with the treaty. Among these is a scheduling provision, 21 U.S.C. 811(d)(1). Section 811(d)(1) provides that, where a drug is subject to control under the Single Convention, the DEA Administrator (by delegation from the Attorney General) must “issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such [treaty] obligations, without regard to the findings required by [21 U.S.C. 811(a) or 812(b)] and without regard to the procedures prescribed by [21 U.S.C. 811(a) and (b)].”

Marijuana is a drug listed in the Single Convention. The Single Convention uses the term “cannabis” to refer to marijuana. [1] Thus, the DEA Administrator is obligated under section 811(d) to control marijuana in the schedule that he deems most appropriate to carry out the U.S. obligations under the Single Convention. It has been established in prior marijuana rescheduling proceedings that placement of marijuana in either schedule I or schedule II of the CSA is “necessary as well as sufficient to satisfy our international obligations” under the Single Convention. NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735, 751 (D.C. Cir. 1977). As the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has stated, “several requirements imposed by the Single Convention would not be met if cannabis and cannabis resin were placed in CSA schedule III, IV, or V.” [2] Id. Therefore, in accordance with section 811(d)(1), DEA must place marijuana in either schedule I or schedule II. Because schedules I and II are the only possible schedules in which marijuana may be placed, for purposes of evaluating this scheduling petition, it is essential to understand the differences between the criteria for placement of a substance in schedule I and those for placement in schedule II. These criteria are set forth in 21 U.S.C. 812(b)(1) and (b)(2), respectively. As indicated therein, substances in both schedule I and schedule II share the characteristic of “a high potential for abuse.” Where the distinction lies is that schedule I drugs have “no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” and “a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug . . . under medical supervision,” while schedule II drugs do have “a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” [3]

Accordingly, in view of section 811(d)(1), this scheduling petition turns on whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. If it does not, DEA must, pursuant to section 811(d), deny the petition and keep marijuana in schedule I.

As indicated, where section 811(d)(1) applies to a drug that is the subject of a rescheduling petition, the DEA Administrator must issue an order controlling the drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out United States obligations under the Single Convention, without regard to the findings required by sections 811(a) or 812(b) and without regard to the procedures prescribed by sections 811(a) and (b). Thus, since the only determinative issue in evaluating the present scheduling petition is whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, DEA need not consider the findings of sections 811(a) or 812(b) that have no bearing on that determination, and DEA likewise need not follow the procedures prescribed by sections 811(a) and (b) with respect to such irrelevant findings. Specifically, DEA need not evaluate the relative abuse potential of marijuana or the relative extent to which abuse of marijuana may lead to physical or psychological dependence.

As explained below, the medical and scientific evaluation and scheduling recommendation issued by the Secretary of Health and Human Services concludes that marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and the DEA Administrator likewise so concludes. For the reasons just indicated, no further analysis beyond this consideration is required. Nonetheless, because of the widespread public interest in understanding all the facts relating to the harms associated with marijuana, DEA is publishing here the entire medical and scientific analysis and scheduling evaluation issued by the Secretary, as well as DEA's additional analysis.

__________

[1] Under the Single Convention, “'cannabis plant' means any plant of the genus Cannabis.” Article 1(c). The Single Convention defines “cannabis” to include “the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops) from which the resin has not been extracted, by whatever name they may be designated.” Article 1(b). This definition of “cannabis” under the Single Convention is slightly less inclusive than the CSA definition of “marihuana,” which includes all parts of the cannabis plant except for the mature stalks, sterilized seeds, oil from the seeds, and certain derivatives thereof. See 21 U.S.C. § 802(16). Cannabis and cannabis resin are included in the list of drugs in Schedule I and Schedule IV of the Single Convention. In contrast to the CSA, the drugs listed in Schedule IV of the Single Convention are also listed in Schedule I of the Single Convention and are subject to the same controls as Schedule I drugs as well as additional controls. Article 2, par. 5

[2] The Court further stated: “For example, [article 31 paragraph 4 of the Single Convention] requires import and export permits that would not be obtained if the substances were placed in CSA schedules III through V. In addition, the quota and [recordkeeping] requirements of Articles 19 through 21 of the Single Convention would be satisfied only by placing the substances in CSA schedule I or II.” Id. n. 71 (internal citations omitted).

[3] As DEA has stated in evaluating prior marijuana rescheduling petitions, “Congress established only one schedule, schedule I, for drugs of abuse with 'no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States' and 'lack of accepted safety for use . . . under medical supervision.' 21 USC 812(b).” 76 FR 40552 (2011); 66 FR 20038 (2001).

He [McWilliams] had, I think, cancer and took cannabis as part of his treatment. He was arrested and charged.

You make it sound like Peter McWilliams was arrested and charged for taking cannabis as part of his treatment.

Oh, the poor baby….that is not so!

McWilliams was a gay man who contracted HIV which developed into the associated non-Hodgkins lymphoma. He contacted Aids in 1996, the same year California voters approved Prop 215.

McWilliams got written verifiable recommendations from two California board licensed physicians and he was entitled to legally purchase marijuana from any dispensary in California and he could legally grow, consume and possess marijuana under California State Law Prop 215.

With state law authorizing the treatment that he found most effective and with the wherewithal to grow it at home, Peter McWilliams might have been home free. But he wanted, as was his wont, to do more.

He made an arrangement with another patient, Tod McCormick for McCormick to grow marijuana. McWilliams financed the rental of a large, old and almost gutted house in Bel Air as a greenhouse. McCormick was arrested and charged with cultivation for sale as the “Bel Air Mansion Pot Grower.” McWilliams finance the growing operation and was also arrested.

At his death, McWilliams was waiting to be sentenced in federal court after being convicted of having conspired to possess, manufacture and sell marijuana after he and McCormick were charged with growing more than 4,000 marijuana plants.

Nothing on your link about "most dangerous".

Not any more - they pulled that text a few days ago: web.archive.org/web/20160...dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml

"Not any more - they pulled that text a few days ago"

Probably because it was an outdated position they no longer have. NOW what are you going to do?

I give no sympathy or agreement until I have learned the other side of the story or the rest of the story.

Probably because it was an outdated position they no longer have.

If by that you mean they realized that continuing to claim that marijuana was one of the "most dangerous" drugs had become so laughable as to do them more harm than good.

If by that you mean they realized that continuing to claim that marijuana was one of the "most dangerous" drugs had become so laughable as to do them more harm than good.

It appears they became sensitive to the fact that their phrasing did not comport with the Schedule I definition at 84 Stat. 1247 (1970).

84 Stat. 1236, 1247 (1970). It is codified at 21 U.S.C. § 812 without textual change.

SCHEDULES OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES

SEC. 202. (a) There are established five schedules of controlled substances, to be known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. Such schedules shall initially consist of the substances listed in this section. The schedules established by this section shall be updated and republished on a semiannual basis during the two-year period beginning one year after the date of enactment of this title and shall be updated and republished on an annual basis thereafter.

(b) Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on the effective date of this part, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:

(1) SCHEDULE I.—

(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.

(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

It appears they became sensitive to the fact that their phrasing did not comport with the Schedule I definition at 84 Stat. 1247 (1970).

Yes, "became sensitive" after at least 45 months of having that text on that page, just at the time when their decision to not reschedule was drawing attention to that page.

Like the commies of the past you want America drugged and stupid.

Was it commies who ended the Prohibition of the stupid-making drug alcohol?

"Was it commies who ended the Prohibition of the stupid-making drug alcohol?"

Your changing subject.

Nope - the subject was drugs and their unbanning.

Aspirin isn't alcohol which isn't weed which isn't heroin.

Glad you cleared that distinction all up, Stone. For the longest tyme, I was afraid you were confused.

Nope - the subject was drugs and their unbanning.

Marijuana has not passed the tests that every drug must pass. Anecdotal evidence from the illegal use of marijuana does not suffice.

For medical use, Medical marijuana requires that the product be of a known strength and purity.

Even grandpappy making perfectly good shine, if he wants to go legal and get licensed, probably would have to do some things that he does not do when making his shine.

And to get a schedule change, there nothing like reading who does it according to federal law.

The Attorney General requests from the Secretary (not DEA but DHHS) a scientific and medical evaluation, and recommendations. The Attorney General considers and acts upon schedule changes. DEA is an enforcement agency, not a medical or scientific department. It is part of the Department of Justice.

In the case of an applicable treaty, and there is one, removing a drug from the schedule would require a change in the treaty or federal law.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2014/title-21/chapter-13/subchapter-i/part-b/sec.-811/

(b) Evaluation of drugs and other substances

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.

(c) Factors determinative of control or removal from schedules

In making any finding under subsection (a) of this section or under subsection (b) of section 812 of this title, the Attorney General shall consider the following factors with respect to each drug or other substance proposed to be controlled or removed from the schedules:

(1) Its 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 or other substance.

(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) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.

(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.

(d) International treaties, conventions, and protocols requiring control; procedures respecting changes in drug schedules of Convention on Psychotropic Substances

(1) If control is required by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings required by subsection (a) of this section or section 812(b) of this title and without regard to the procedures prescribed by subsections (a) and (b) of this section.

[snip]

Or are you really understanding and knowing the goddamned concept that: GOVERNMENT CAN NOT ENFORCE MARIJUANA LAWS?

"that continuing to claim that marijuana was one of the "most dangerous" drugs"

They never claimed that. Geez Louise. Why do you repeat the lie? They were referring to Schedule I.

So I'm guessing they dropped that descriptor because ignorant people like you insisted on applying it to marijuana. Now it's gone. As is your argument.

"Despite all the legalese you applaud, did you ever realize marijuana is a backyard weed?"

Correction. Marijuana is an illegal backyard weed.

"It appears they became sensitive to the fact that their phrasing did not comport with the Schedule I definition at 84 Stat. 1247 (1970)."

Good point. The Controlled Substances Act passed by Congress almost 50 years ago never used the phrase "most dangerous". Adding it was inflammatory, disingenuous and incorrect.

"that continuing to claim that marijuana was one of the "most dangerous" drugs"

They never claimed that. Geez Louise. Why do you repeat the lie? They were referring to Schedule I.

Which Schedule has marijuana been on for the entire history of Schedules, dissembling fuckwit?

the phrase "most dangerous". Adding it was inflammatory, disingenuous and incorrect.

That's the War on Drugs for you.

alcohol which isn't weed

Nobody said nor implied they were the same - the issue is, what reason there is to think that legalization of the latter but not of the former would make "America drugged and stupid so that we fall as a nation."

backyard weed

Despite all the legalese you applaud, did you ever realize marijuana is a backyard weed?

It is a backyard weed that can send you to prison in all 52 federal jurisdictions. Possession, cultivation or distribution of any amount of marijuana, for medical use or otherwise, is a Federal crime, regardless of any state blatherings.

If they go after two or more potheads, they can charge conspiracy and need only prove that at least one of the co-conspirators took an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. All your personal property used in furtherance of the conspiracy can be forfeited to the government. And you can get a long stretch in prison.

Gonzales v. Raich arose in California via the 9th Circuit Court and was decided in the U.S. Supreme Court. It remains good law and slaps down all state laws inconsistent with federal law. The Supreme Court clearly stated, "The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail."

Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 27-29 (2005)

First, the fact that marijuana is used “for personal medical purposes on the advice of a physician” cannot itself serve as a distinguishing factor. Id., at 1229. The CSA designates marijuana as contraband for any purpose; in fact, by characterizing marijuana as a Schedule I drug, Congress expressly found that the drug has no acceptable medical uses. Moreover, the CSA is a comprehensive regulatory regime specifically designed to regulate which controlled substances can be utilized for medicinal purposes, and in what manner. Indeed, most of the substances classified in the CSA “have a useful and legitimate medical purpose.” 21 U. S. C. § 801(1). Thus, even if respondents are correct that marijuana does have accepted medical uses and thus should be redesignated as a lesser schedule drug, [37] the CSA would still impose controls beyond what is required by California law. The CSA requires manufacturers, physicians, pharmacies, and other handlers of controlled substances to comply with statutory and regulatory provisions mandating registration with the DEA, compliance with specific production quotas, security controls to guard against diversion, recordkeeping and reporting obligations, and prescription requirements. See §§ 821–830; 21 CFR § 1301 et seq. (2004). Furthermore, the dispensing of new drugs, even when doctors approve their use, must await federal approval. United States v. Rutherford, 442 U. S. 544 (1979). Accordingly, the mere fact that marijuana—like virtually every other controlled substance regulated by the CSA—is used for medicinal purposes cannot possibly serve to distinguish it from the core activities regulated by the CSA. Nor can it serve as an “objective marke[r]” or “objective facto[r]” to arbitrarily narrow the relevant class as the dissenters suggest, post, at 47 (opinion of O’Connor, J.); post, at 68 (opinion of Thomas, J.). More fundamentally, if, as the principal dissent contends, the personal cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes is beyond the “‘outer limits’ of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority,” post, at 42 (opinion of O’Connor, J.), it must also be true that such personal use of marijuana (or any other homegrown drug) for recreational purposes is also beyond those “‘outer limits,’” whether or not a State elects to authorize or even regulate such use. Justice Thomas’ separate dissent suffers from the same sweeping implications. That is, the dissenters’ rationale logically extends to place any federal regulation (including quality, prescription, or quantity controls) of any locally cultivated and possessed controlled substance for any purpose beyond the “‘outer limits’” of Congress’ Commerce Clause authority. One need not have a degree in economics to understand why a nationwide exemption for the vast quantity of marijuana (or other drugs) locally cultivated for personal use (which presumably would include use by friends, neighbors, and family members) may have a substantial impact on the interstate market for this extraordinarily popular substance. The congressional judgment that an exemption for such a significant segment of the total market would undermine the orderly enforcement of the entire regulatory scheme is entitled to a strong presumption of validity. Indeed, that judgment is not only rational, but “visible to the naked eye,” Lopez, 514 U. S., at 563, under any commonsense appraisal of the probable consequences of such an openended exemption.

Second, limiting the activity to marijuana possession and cultivation “in accordance with state law” cannot serve to place respondents’ activities beyond congressional reach. The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail. It is beyond peradventure that federal power over commerce is “ ‘superior to that of the States to provide for the welfare or necessities of their inhabitants,’ ” however legitimate or dire those necessities may be. Wirtz, 392 U. S., at 196 (quoting Sanitary Dist. of Chicago v. United States, 266 U. S. 405, 426 (1925)). See also 392 U. S., at 195–196; Wickard, 317 U. S., at 124 (“‘[N]o form of state activity can constitutionally thwart the regulatory power granted by the commerce clause to Congress’”).

- - - - - - - - - -

[37] We acknowledge that evidence proffered by respondents in this case regarding the effective medical uses for marijuana, if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I. See, e. g., Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base 179 (J. Joy, S. Watson, & J. Benson eds. 1999) (recognizing that “[s]cientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC [Tetrahydrocannabinol] for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation”); see also Conant v. Walters, 309 F. 3d 629, 640–643 (CA9 2002) (Kozinski, J., concurring) (chronicling medical studies recognizing valid medical uses for marijuana and its derivatives). But the possibility that the drug may be reclassified in the future has no relevance to the question whether Congress now has the power to regulate its production and distribution. Respondents’ submission, if accepted, would place all homegrown medical substances beyond the reach of Congress’ regulatory jurisdiction.

Or are you really understanding and knowing the goddamned concept that: GOVERNMENT CAN NOT ENFORCE MARIJUANA LAWS?

Have you considered ministering to the prison population?

We acknowledge that evidence proffered by respondents in this case regarding the effective medical uses for marijuana, if found credible after trial, would cast serious doubt on the accuracy of the findings that require marijuana to be listed in Schedule I. See, e. g., Institute of Medicine, Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base 179 (J. Joy, S. Watson, & J. Benson eds. 1999) (recognizing that “[s]cientific data indicate the potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs, primarily THC [Tetrahydrocannabinol] for pain relief, control of nausea and vomiting, and appetite stimulation”); see also Conant v. Walters, 309 F. 3d 629, 640–643 (CA9 2002) (Kozinski, J., concurring) (chronicling medical studies recognizing valid medical uses for marijuana and its derivatives).

Interesting!

Interesting!

Problematic.

But the possibility that the drug may be reclassified in the future has no relevance to the question whether Congress now has the power to regulate its production and distribution.

Nobody that matters is performing the requisite tests. Whoever controls whether testing gets done could get rich just arranging for donations from alcohol industry lobbyists to his trust fund.