« Marine judge advocate wins promotion do-over | Main | White House protester wins one over Secret Service »

January 22, 2013

Appeals court snuffs out pot challenge

#Pot advocates have lost an effort to force #DEA authorities to reconsider how marijuana is classified.

In a 28-page majority opinion, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the pleas made by Americans for Safe Access and disabled veteran Michael Krawitz. The pot advocates claim that numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrate that marijuana is effective in treating various medical conditions, but the DEA ignores them to keep marijuana tightly regulated as a Schedule I drug.

Here's how the majority decision, authored by Judge Harry T. Edwards, teed up the issue:

"The question before the court is not whether marijuana could have some medical benefits. Rather, the limited question that we address is whether the DEA’s decision declining to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana under the (Controlled Substances Act) was arbitrary and capricious."

Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote a lively dissent, arguing the pot plaintiffs lacked standing.

To be reclassified, the DEA would have to concluded that pot has a  “currently accepted medical use.” The DEA’s regulations define “currently accepted medical use” to require, among other things, “adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy.” 

Concluding that "something more than 'peer-reviewed' studies is required to satisfy DEA’s
standard, and for good reason," Edward stated.The court concluded:

"The DEA’s construction of its regulation is eminently reasonable. Therefore, we are obliged to defer to the agency’s interpretation of 'adequate and well-controlled studies.'"



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Appeals court snuffs out pot challenge:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Catch 22, the government doesn't allow studies to be done and then states,
""The DEA’s construction of its regulation is eminently reasonable. Therefore, we are obliged to defer to the agency’s interpretation of 'adequate and well-controlled studies.'"

Buddy Green

The DEA refuses to allow for studies that might provide evidence in dispute of their political position on marijuana. There is no evidence to suggest that we should allow anything that might suggest that there is evidence.

rolex replica

I was Skowronek's TA back in 1998-9. He is touchingly modest about the book and acknowledges that his scheme is very broad and general.

The comments to this entry are closed.



"Suits & Sentences" is a legal affairs blog written by Michael Doyle, a reporter for McClatchy's Washington Bureau. He was a Knight Journalism Fellow at Yale Law School, where he earned a Master of Studies in Law; he also earned a Masters in Government from The Johns Hopkins University with a thesis on the Freedom of Information Act. He teaches journalism as an adjunct instructor at The George Washington University's School of Media and Public Affairs.

Send a suggestion or news tip. Read Mike's stories at news.mcclatchydc.com.

Follow Mike on Twitter: @MichaelDoyle10

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4 5 6
    7 8 9 10 11 12 13
    14 15 16 17 18 19 20
    21 22 23 24 25 26 27
    28 29 30 31