Reply-To: "Las Vegas NORML" <lvnorml@yahoo.com> From: "Las Vegas NORML" <lvnorml@yahoo.com> To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;> Subject: NORML E-Zine Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:49:12 -0800 Organization: Las Vegas NORML MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0058_01C19AD0.A98F4B20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C19AD0.A98F4B20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
NORML E-Zine Volume 5 Issue 2 January 10, 2002
TOP STORIES* D.C. Court of Appeals to Review Administrative Petition=20 Challenging Pot's Prohibitive Status * Oakland Cannabis Cooperative Files Brief on Remand in Federal=20 District Court Asking For Modification of 1998 Injunction * Hemp Industry Calls On Court to Enjoin Hemp Foods Ban
D.C. Court of Appeals to Review Administrative Petition=20 Challenging Pot's Prohibitive StatusCourt to Decide Whether DEA Erred By Not Assessing Marijuana's=20 Low Abuse Potential Compared to Other Drugs
Washington, DC: Oral arguments will be heard in March=20 in the D.C. Court of Appeals to determine whether DEA officials=20 improperly rejected a 1995 rescheduling petition filed by former=20 NORML Director Jon Gettman challenging marijuana's legal status=20 as a Schedule I prohibited substance.
"The DEA and HHS [US Department of Health and Human Services]=20 did not address Gettman's principal argument that marijuana=20 does not have a high potential for abuse as compared to other=20 substances," argues a petition for review filed on behalf of=20 Gettman by NORML Legal Committee member Michael Kennedy of New=20 York City. The DEA issued a final denial of Gettman's 1995=20 petition on March 20, 2001.
"Specifically, HHS concluded that marijuana is structurally=20 related to Dronabinol (the prescription drug Marinol), a=20 Schedule III drug; Naboline, a Schedule II drug, and all=20 other cannabinoids, which are listed as Schedule I." Gettman's=20 original petition requested the rescheduling of all four substances,=20 arguing that there is no scientific basis for the assertion that=20 marijuana or any cannabinoid has a greater dependence liability=20 or potential for abuse than Marinol, a drug the DEA recently=20 reclassified from Schedule II to III because of its relatively=20 low abuse potential. By definition, all Schedule I prohibited=20 drugs must have a "high potential for abuse" and "no currently=20 medical accepted use in treatment."
In 1999, a comprehensive review of marijuana's therapeutic=20 potential by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of=20 Medicine (IOM) determined that "few marijuana users develop=20 dependence," and described the symptoms of so-called "marijuana=20 withdrawal" to be "mild and short-lived." Authors concluded,=20 "Except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects=20 of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for=20 other medications."
"Rather than establish that marijuana has a level of abuse=20 comparable to other Schedule I or II substances, HHS essentially=20 concluded that it has a high potential for abuse because it is=20 widely used, creates a hazard in some users' health, and because=20 people are taking the substance on their own initiative," Gettman's=20 petition for review states. "Not surprisingly, HHS provides no=20 authority for the proposition that widespread use of a controlled=20 substance constitutes a high potential for abuse. ... In fact,=20 HHS conceded that marijuana has relatively low levels of toxicity=20 and physical dependence as compared to other illicit drugs. =20 ... At most, the HHS and DEA findings establish that marijuana=20 has a level of abuse potential that may be sufficient for=20 Schedule V (the lowest scheduling category, which includes=20 prescription drugs like codeine-containing analgesics) under=20 the Controlled Substances Act."
The D.C. Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in the=20 case on March 19.
NORML filed a similar rescheduling petition with the DEA=20 in 1972, but was not granted a federal hearing on the issue=20 until 1986. In 1988, DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis=20 Young ruled that marijuana did not meet the legal criteria of=20 a Schedule I prohibited drug and should be reclassified. =20 Then-DEA Administrator John Lawn rejected Young's determination,=20 a decision the D.C. Court of Appeals eventually affirmed in 1994.
For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre,=20 NORML Foundation Executive Director, at (202) 483-8751 or=20 the law offices of Michael Kennedy at (212) 935-4500. =20
Oakland Cannabis Cooperative Files Brief on Remand in Federal=20 District Court Asking For Modification of 1998 Injunction=20Oakland, CA: Lawyers for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers'=20 Cooperative (OCBC) have submitted a brief on remand asking a=20 U.S. district court to modify its 1998 injunction ordering the OCBC=20 to cease distributing medical marijuana to seriously ill patients. =20 OCBC attorneys filed the motion this week after the Ninth Circuit=20 Court of Appeals remanded the case to the lower court following=20 a previous remand from the United States Supreme Court.
The OCBC argues that the 1998 injunction is unconstitutional=20 because the OCBC's medical marijuana distribution activities=20 involve intrastate, not interstate, commerce. Furthermore, if=20 it is determined that the intrastate distribution of medical=20 cannabis does substantially affect interstate commerce, the OCBC=20 asks the court to decide whether the government may properly=20 interfere with state sovereignty or has a compelling interest=20 to restrict the exercise of fundamental rights, such as the=20 amelioration of pain or the prolongation of life.
Last May, the Supreme Court determined that third-party=20 medical marijuana dispensaries may not raise the defense of=20 medical necessity against federal charges of manufacturing=20 and distributing marijuana. Other issues regarding the=20 constitutionality of the federal marijuana laws were not=20 decided by the court in that case.
For more information, please contact Keith Stroup,=20 NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-5500 or OCBC=20 attorney Robert Raich at (510) 338-0700.
Hemp Industry Calls On Court to Enjoin Hemp Foods BanSan Francisco, CA: The Hemp Industries Association (HIA)=20 and seven hemp food companies filed a brief this week with=20 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals urging the court to enjoin=20 recently enacted DEA regulations criminalizing the possession=20 and manufacture of any edible hemp seed or oil products that=20 contain trace amounts of THC. The HIA is asking the court to=20 issue an injunction preventing the DEA from enforcing the ban=20 until the legal challenge to the regulation is concluded.
For more information, please contact Allen St. Pierre,=20 NORML Foundation Executive Director, at (202) 483-8751 or visit:=20 http://www.votehemp.com .
Support NORML's efforts to change marijuana policy and educate=20 the public to alternatives to marijuana prohibition. You can=20 join or donate online at: https://banqa.uaqa.com/norml/join/
------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C19AD0.A98F4B20 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <META content=3D"MSHTML 5.50.4134.600" name=3DGENERATOR> <STYLE></STYLE> </HEAD> <BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff> <DIV><FONT size=3D2><FONT size=3D3>NORML E-Zine<BR>Volume 5<BR>Issue = 2<BR>January=20 10, 2002<BR></FONT><FONT size=3D3><BR>####################<BR>TOP = STORIES<BR><BR>*=20 D.C. Court of Appeals to Review Administrative Petition <BR> = Challenging=20 Pot's Prohibitive Status<BR>* Oakland Cannabis Cooperative Files Brief = on Remand=20 in Federal <BR> District Court Asking For Modification of 1998=20 Injunction<BR>* Hemp Industry Calls On Court to Enjoin Hemp Foods=20 Ban<BR><BR>_______________________________________________________<BR>D.C= . Court=20 of Appeals to Review Administrative Petition <BR>Challenging Pot's = Prohibitive=20 Status<BR><BR>Court to Decide Whether DEA Erred By Not Assessing = Marijuana's=20 <BR>Low Abuse Potential Compared to Other = Drugs<BR><BR> =20 Washington, DC: Oral arguments will be heard in March <BR>in the = D.C.=20 Court of Appeals to determine whether DEA officials <BR>improperly = rejected a=20 1995 rescheduling petition filed by former <BR>NORML Director Jon = Gettman=20 challenging marijuana's legal status <BR>as a Schedule I prohibited=20 substance.<BR><BR> "The DEA and HHS [US Department of = Health=20 and Human Services] <BR>did not address Gettman's principal argument = that=20 marijuana <BR>does not have a high potential for abuse as compared to = other=20 <BR>substances," argues a petition for review filed on behalf of = <BR>Gettman by=20 NORML Legal Committee member Michael Kennedy of New <BR>York City. = The DEA=20 issued a final denial of Gettman's 1995 <BR>petition on March 20,=20 2001.<BR><BR> "Specifically, HHS concluded that = marijuana is=20 structurally <BR>related to Dronabinol (the prescription drug Marinol), = a=20 <BR>Schedule III drug; Naboline, a Schedule II drug, and all <BR>other=20 cannabinoids, which are listed as Schedule I." Gettman's = <BR>original=20 petition requested the rescheduling of all four substances, <BR>arguing = that=20 there is no scientific basis for the assertion that <BR>marijuana or any =
cannabinoid has a greater dependence liability <BR>or potential for = abuse than=20 Marinol, a drug the DEA recently <BR>reclassified from Schedule II to = III=20 because of its relatively <BR>low abuse potential. By definition, = all=20 Schedule I prohibited <BR>drugs must have a "high potential for abuse" = and "no=20 currently <BR>medical accepted use in = treatment."<BR><BR> In=20 1999, a comprehensive review of marijuana's therapeutic <BR>potential by = the=20 National Academy of Sciences' Institute of <BR>Medicine (IOM) determined = that=20 "few marijuana users develop <BR>dependence," and described the symptoms = of=20 so-called "marijuana <BR>withdrawal" to be "mild and short-lived." = Authors=20 concluded, <BR>"Except for the harms associated with smoking, the = adverse=20 effects <BR>of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated = for=20 <BR>other medications."<BR><BR> "Rather than establish = that=20 marijuana has a level of abuse <BR>comparable to other Schedule I or II=20 substances, HHS essentially <BR>concluded that it has a high potential = for abuse=20 because it is <BR>widely used, creates a hazard in some users' health, = and=20 because <BR>people are taking the substance on their own initiative," = Gettman's=20 <BR>petition for review states. "Not surprisingly, HHS provides no =
<BR>authority for the proposition that widespread use of a controlled=20 <BR>substance constitutes a high potential for abuse. ... In fact, = <BR>HHS=20 conceded that marijuana has relatively low levels of toxicity <BR>and = physical=20 dependence as compared to other illicit drugs. <BR>... At most, = the HHS=20 and DEA findings establish that marijuana <BR>has a level of abuse = potential=20 that may be sufficient for <BR>Schedule V (the lowest scheduling = category, which=20 includes <BR>prescription drugs like codeine-containing analgesics) = under=20 <BR>the Controlled Substances Act."<BR><BR> The D.C. = Court of=20 Appeals will hear oral arguments in the <BR>case on March=20 19.<BR><BR> NORML filed a similar rescheduling = petition with=20 the DEA <BR>in 1972, but was not granted a federal hearing on the issue=20 <BR>until 1986. In 1988, DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis = <BR>Young=20 ruled that marijuana did not meet the legal criteria of <BR>a Schedule I =
prohibited drug and should be reclassified. <BR>Then-DEA = Administrator=20 John Lawn rejected Young's determination, <BR>a decision the D.C. Court = of=20 Appeals eventually affirmed in 1994.<BR><BR> For more=20 information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, <BR>NORML Foundation = Executive=20 Director, at (202) 483-8751 or <BR>the law offices of Michael Kennedy at = (212)=20 935-4500.<BR> =20 <BR>_____________________________________________________________<BR>Oakl= and=20 Cannabis Cooperative Files Brief on Remand in Federal <BR>District Court = Asking=20 For Modification of 1998 Injunction <BR><BR> Oakland,=20 CA: Lawyers for the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' <BR>Cooperative = (OCBC) have=20 submitted a brief on remand asking a <BR>U.S. district court to modify = its 1998=20 injunction ordering the OCBC <BR>to cease distributing medical marijuana = to=20 seriously ill patients. <BR>OCBC attorneys filed the motion this = week=20 after the Ninth Circuit <BR>Court of Appeals remanded the case to the = lower=20 court following <BR>a previous remand from the United States Supreme=20 Court.<BR><BR> The OCBC argues that the 1998 = injunction is=20 unconstitutional <BR>because the OCBC's medical marijuana distribution=20 activities <BR>involve intrastate, not interstate, commerce. = Furthermore,=20 if <BR>it is determined that the intrastate distribution of medical = <BR>cannabis=20 does substantially affect interstate commerce, the OCBC <BR>asks the = court to=20 decide whether the government may properly <BR>interfere with state = sovereignty=20 or has a compelling interest <BR>to restrict the exercise of fundamental = rights,=20 such as the <BR>amelioration of pain or the prolongation of=20 life.<BR><BR> Last May, the Supreme Court determined = that=20 third-party <BR>medical marijuana dispensaries may not raise the defense = of=20 <BR>medical necessity against federal charges of manufacturing <BR>and=20 distributing marijuana. Other issues regarding the = <BR>constitutionality=20 of the federal marijuana laws were not <BR>decided by the court in that=20 case.<BR><BR> For more information, please contact = Keith=20 Stroup, <BR>NORML Executive Director, at (202) 483-5500 or OCBC = <BR>attorney=20 Robert Raich at (510)=20 338-0700.<BR><BR>_____________________________________________________<BR= >Hemp=20
Industry Calls On Court to Enjoin Hemp Foods = Ban<BR><BR> San=20 Francisco, CA: The Hemp Industries Association (HIA) <BR>and seven hemp = food=20 companies filed a brief this week with <BR>the Ninth Circuit Court of = Appeals=20 urging the court to enjoin <BR>recently enacted DEA regulations = criminalizing=20 the possession <BR>and manufacture of any edible hemp seed or oil = products that=20 <BR>contain trace amounts of THC. The HIA is asking the court to = <BR>issue=20 an injunction preventing the DEA from enforcing the ban <BR>until the = legal=20 challenge to the regulation is concluded.<BR><BR> For = more=20 information, please contact Allen St. Pierre, <BR>NORML Foundation = Executive=20 Director, at (202) 483-8751 or visit: <BR></FONT><A=20 href=3D"http://www.votehemp.com"><FONT=20 size=3D3>http://www.votehemp.com</FONT></A><FONT=20 size=3D3>.<BR><BR>####################<BR>Support NORML's efforts to = change=20 marijuana policy and educate <BR>the public to alternatives to marijuana =prohibition. You can <BR>join or donate online at:<BR> = </FONT><A=20 href=3D"https://banqa.uaqa.com/norml/join/"><FONT=20 size=3D3>https://banqa.uaqa.com/norml/join/</FONT></A><BR></FONT></DIV></= BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_0058_01C19AD0.A98F4B20--
Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com