Federal District Court Judge Asks: Should Federal Law Classify Cannabis As One Of The Nation’s Most Dangerous Drugs?

Marijuana and the LawTestimony regarding the constitutionality of the federal statute designating marijuana as a Schedule I Controlled Substance will be taken on Monday, October 27 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in the case of United States v. Pickard, et. al., No. 2:11-CR-0449-KJM.

Members of Congress initially categorized cannabis as a Schedule I substance, the most restrictive classification available, in 1970. Under this categorization, the plant is defined as possessing “a high potential for abuse, … no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, … [and lacking] accepted safety for … use … under medical supervision.”

Expert witnesses for the defense – including Drs. Carl Hart, Associate Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry and Psychology at Columbia University in New York City, retired physician Phillip Denny, and Greg Carter, Medical Director of St. Luke’s Rehabilitation Institute in Spokane, Washington – will testify that the accepted science is inconsistent with the notion that cannabis meets these Schedule I criteria.

“[I]t is my considered opinion that including marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is counter to all the scientific evidence in a society that uses and values empirical evidence,” Dr. Hart declared. “After two decades of intense scientific inquiry in this area, it has become apparent the current scheduling of cannabis has no footing in the realities of science and neurobiology.”

The government intends to call Bertha Madras, Ph.D., Professor of Psychobiology at Harvard Medical School and the former Deputy Director for Demand Reduction for the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy under President George W. Bush.

Additional evidence has been presented by way of declarations by Marine Sgt. Ryan Begin, a veteran of the Iraq War; Jennie Stormes, the mother of a child suffering from Dravet Syndrome – a pediatric form of epilepsy that has been shown in preliminary trials to respond to specific compounds in the cannabis plant; James Nolan, Ph.D. an associate professor of sociology and anthropology at West Virginia University and a former crime analyst for the US Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Christopher Conrad, noted cannabis author, archivist, and cultivation expert.

This is the first time in recent memory that a federal judge has granted an evidentiary hearing on a motion challenging the statute which classifies cannabis to be one of the most dangerous illicit substances in the nation. Attorneys Zenia Gilg and Heather Burke, both members of the NORML Legal Committee, contend that the federal government’s present policies facilitating the regulated distribution of cannabis in states such as Colorado and Washington can not be reconciled with the insistence that the plant is deserving of its Schedule I status under federal law.

They write: “In effect, the action taken by the Department of Justice is either irrational, or more likely proves the assertions made in Part I (B) of this Brief: marijuana does not fit the criteria of a Schedule I Controlled Substance.”

Speaking recently in a taped interview with journalist Katie Couric, United States Attorney General Eric Holder expressed the need to revisit cannabis’ Schedule I placement under federal law. Holder said, “[T]he question of whether or not they should be in the same category is something that I think we need to ask ourselves, and use science as the basis for making that determination.”

The testimonial part of the evidentiary hearing in United States v. Pickard, et. al., is expected to last three days.

127 thoughts

  1. LIGHT IT UP!!!!!!!

    Thank you Paul for your excellent reporting on this HISTORIC event in our history. The timing on this is full consequence, not coincidence;
    -Attorney Eric Holder’s announcement that he is retiring before making the statement to reschedule!
    -The court date is set the week before elections in California to reduce sentencing for minor nonviolent posessions of marijuana, Oregon, D.C. and Alaska are set to legalize and Florida votes on changing their constitution to legalize medicinal marijuana, tipping us well over the half way mark of electoral votes in favor of legalizing marijuana!
    -“This is the first time in recent memory that a federal judge has granted an evidentiary hearing on a motion challenging the statute which classifies cannabis to be one of the most dangerous illicit substances in the nation.”

    Oh what I wouldn’t give to be a fly on the wall of this hearing!!!
    The revolution will not be televised…
    Or will it?

  2. What part of the US Constitution permits government interference or prohibition of the personal use, growth or distribution of a plant especially if the plant has beneficial uses?

    Looking forwards to the outcome of this hearing. Thinking positive.

    In my opinion marijuana prohibition has been and is a form of severe persecution and a denial of one’s Constitutional Right in one’s personal pursuit of happiness, that could result from mating with the plant as a common interest; finding a job the individual dreams about and has the skills and education for, but is denied for use of this plant; laws that create a hostile environment for one to ingest or use the plant for not only personal and medicinal use, also prohibiting the plant’s use in art, fabrics, oil production, reducing global warming, competition in the free markets as a organic commodity; the list is endless…

  3. Here’s to hoping reality will finally be allowed into a marijuana case… This is very important, as they are finally looking at marijuana and not if the government has the “right” to ban it. (of course they do, but not if they are lying about what it is as clearly that would be a scam). If the Fed’s again side with Prohibition and all its lies, the idea we have access to justice is literally just an illusion.

  4. “In effect, the action taken by the Department of Justice is either irrational, or more likely proves the assertions made in Part I (B) of this Brief: marijuana does not fit the criteria of a Schedule I Controlled Substance.”

    If the DOJ’s action is irrational, then it is because of the irrational federal definition of marihuana. That definition is contemptuous of the US Constitution. The States have demonstrated that it does not “fit the criteria” of a Necessary and Proper law. It is a bad law and a failure, and therefore does not deserve to gain any credence by being rescheduled. If rescheduled, that
    definition will still be a confusing batch of argle-bargle. It should be replaced by this definition which actually shows respect for our Constitution:

    The term “marijuana” means all parts of the smoke produced by the combustion of the plant Cannabis sativa L.

    Since this definition declares and describes the scientific repeatability of that substance, the discussions about its
    rescheduling can provide a way for the States to use science as the basis for making their own determinations.

    This year is a good time to take these actions.

  5. This seems promising 🙂 The answer is quite obvious to most of us. It is completely moronic that cannabis is ranked as a schedule 1 drug.

    I wonder if the testimony it will make any difference to the powers that be.

    I hope that NORML will keep us posted on the testimony and anything that comes from it. I’m getting to be a bit of a sad old man who no longer has any faith in our Govt so I am not optimistic that a few more people getting the truth out there will prompt any change by our current congress. But I would love to be proven wrong!

  6. i believe (FBI director) Anslinger has killed more people than all wars put together.And president Nixon beef up the lies by starting a war on it.People have been dieing sense 1930s. Because of their desistion to outlaw the most use full plant on earth.Gods gift to mankind.

  7. I don’t think our Bill of Rights refers to “science”. They hadn’t yet invented electricity in the days when it was written. The particulars of freedom though are self-evident, such as redressing grievances (I presume using logic) which is in fact guaranteed in the First Amendment.

  8. Does this mean marijuana could be legal soon nationally? Id like to know NORMLS definition of what all this really means because it sounds to me the government could be changing the schedule of cannabis?

  9. I actually read the HHS article published in Jan 2001 as a response to a request filed in 1997 (they took a while to respond, huh?) that the Schedule I classification of Marijuana be revisited. They reach more or less the same conclusions that we have since then, which is that marijuana is at most as dangerous as tobacco or alcohol on its own, it is less addictive than either, and any psychological dependencies or symptoms of withdrawal are (I quote) “mild.”

    So how come the result of their study came with a note on the first page saying that “…the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) recommends that marijuana continue to be subject to control under Schedule I.”?

    The prominent guidelines to which they were forced to adhere in their conclusion included whether the drug had “…actual or relative potential for abuse……scientific knowledge about the drug or substance in general, history and current patterns of abuse, the scope and duration and significance of abuse, and whether the substance is a precursor of a substance that is already controlled.” Because marijuana was ALREADY classified as a Schedule I substance any use was considered abuse, so they were forced to concede that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, since historically there are large numbers of people who have used it recreationally frequently for long periods of time. Also because of the current Schedule I classification, marijuana was under tight restrictions regarding medical research, and as such they were not able to find enough research to determine whether or not it had legitimate medical use. As a result, despite the actual wording in the research sections of the article implying that the drug is not dangerous, is not addictive, and has a potential for medical use, they were unable to break out of the Catch 22 and present the research necessary to reclassify the substance.

    To me, it’s a classic example of politics overshadowing science. Since the “Reefer Madness” days the government has had the foregone conclusion that marijuana is dangerous and should be illegal, and so they have gone out of their way to make legislation which sets up a Catch 22 — because the substance is illegal, you can’t study it, and because you can’t study it, it’s illegal. Because the substance is illegal, anyone who is using it is breaking the law (and therefore abusing it), and so therefore there are a large number of people “abusing” it. It’s nonsense, and we need someone with a scientific mind and clear sense of ethics in a position of power such that this paleolithic legislation can be overturned and some small sense of order can arise from the chaos that is our current government. If the lawmakers can’t do it, then maybe the courts can.
    Good luck to all involved in this case (at least those who are on the correct side). There are a lot of eyes on you.

  10. Which criteria of the three?

    What is the constitutional arguement?

    Holder’s ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    It is not science. it is deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law.

  11. If the plaintiffs prevail, it will be a big SYMBOLIC win. But that’s about it. A federal judge (DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young, 1988) already found marijuana should not be in Schedule 1, and the DEA ignored that decision. The DEA answers to no one, not even a federal judge, and they alone make all scheduling decisions (a power ceded to them by the Attorney General).

  12. A curious set of events has occurred in the timeline of our American Cannnabis Tragedy;

    1).Weeks ago, Attorney General Eric Holder announced his retirement.

    2). 1 week ago, He was quoted with Katie Curic as demanding that we “reschedule cannabis.”

    3).Under the Controlled Substance Act, the Attorney General has exclusive authority to deschedule cannabis.

    4). The U.S. Government v. Pickard, et al. is set for the 27th, will last three days, and end before midterm elections set for Nov. 4th.

    5). November elections will tip us over the 50% mark of states with pro marijuana policy, including Oregon, Alaska, Washington D.C. legalizing, California decriminalizing, and Florida’s change of constitution to legalize medicinal marijuana.
    6). Our Judas in this case, Dr. Bertha Madras, sits before a tsunami of testimony in the U.S. v. Pickard case. Here is some dirt I dug up on her from Wikepedia of all places. Check this out:
    “Of over 170 media events and interviews during her term, she gave two interviews on Narcan distribution to heroin addicts and friends. At that time, she strongly supported narcan rescue by trained healthcare personnel, but opposed distribution to heroin users and their friends, of overdose rescue kits of opiate-antidote naloxone (Narcan) in i.v. or nasal spray form. Her opposition was based on discussions with NIDA and SAMHSA and a scientific literature survey by NIDA.”
    My friends, there is an argument here between heroin, marijuana and federal distribution that could win this case. Just dig a little deeper and put this bitch on the stand.
    Oh I say again… to be a fly on the wall of this court case… please tell me cameras are aloud!!!

  13. Just do what’s right US government. You have the data. Why control something that has health benefits and never hurt people like alcohol and tobacco. Heck even my heart doc says a little indica and yoga good for my heart.

  14. Eric Holder? The guy that quit? Who cares what he thinks. What is going to happen is this Medical BS is going to make marijuana an unobtainable drug without a scrip and you’ll pay around 50 dollars a joint.

  15. you can go to New York and buy cigarettes cheaper! Thanks NORML and California. At least we can still shoot heroine. Its safer according to the government anyway!

  16. The only way the government, which does not represent the people when it comes to marijuana, will take it off the schedule, is when big pharma has gained a foot hoold into the industry. The way Canada is now going, awarding three grower licesense out of 12 available nationwide to big pharma.

  17. wow, this could lead to some huge downstream effects in cannabis policy. and in today’s political climate, i can’t imagine the judge siding with the government, given the text of the definition for Schedule 1 drugs. something needs to force congress’s hand on this issue.

  18. DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis Young decided this question back in 1988, in favor of rescheduling. The DEA ignored that decision. So, if the DEA has set a precedent that it doesn’t have to abide by the decision of a federal judge, why would they suddenly give up their power now? The DEA answers to no one, and will never willingly submit to any authority. Only the president can force the DEA to act (in theory), and that will never happen. This decision will at best be symbolic.

    [Paul Armentano responds: To clarify, the DEA ignored the decision of an administrative law judge because ALJ decisions are non-binding. The hearing will be presided by a federal judge.]

  19. Too bad the US Patent On Cannabis (which voids the Sched 1 designation) is AGAINT being ignored. The testimony would be helped by bringing this fact to the surface. The gov’t can’t have it Schedule 1 AND have a US Patent for the medical value, at the SAME time

  20. It is amazing that NORML is not bringing the issue of the US Patent to the forefront, or advising those who will testify about the contradiction … which the gov’t CAN NOT explain or defend .. this could win your case

  21. It is certainly time that we do not only this but deschedule all drugs. End this arbitrary and capricious categorization as “good drug” or “Bad drug” and the unintended consequences that these failed laws of prohibition have created (while doing nothing to reduce use, demand, or availability). Allow our existing system of Doctor/Pharmacy/Patient to function while physicians and patients are able to select the best possible treatments that work for them, addicts are free to obtain treatments without fear of legal consequences, and medical boards can discipline or suspend physicians who abuse this privilege to the detriment of their patients.

  22. I think pot weed would stop a lot of drama in our world if people could get it when they need it but I country to legal it were people don’t have to move from we’re they lived all there life’s just to be able to smoke weed I smoked it for20 years never got into any trouble and when I quit I went to jail year later for one night and when I smoked it I was always happy and other people happy too and now I have pass out sezieors and take pills for it and I need weed but I want break the law now I’m older and wiser but can’t get it love alone have night mares and stay up all night were I can sleep scared of dark my wife passes with liver cancer 38 no kids 20 years with her and Iray ever night for god to bless USA for legal weed all over for the ones that need it and ones that don’t great but it better then pills there killing people daily weed never killed anyone well just praying hopeing wishing that it legal everywhere this year 2014 2015 God Bless USA

  23. I can only see two options for this hearing –

    1) The judge disallows any evidence that suggests cannabis has medical value and it should still be Schedule I substance
    2) The judge finds that the Schedule I categorisation is no longer (and possibly never has been) valid.

    Option 1 seems very unlikely since it is surely open to being further contested unless a legal precedent can be set that no evidence can ever be presented to show the medical usefulness of cannabis.
    To take option 2 there only has to be just one piece of evidence (out of all that is presented) that a medical condition has been helped by some form of cannabis. Given the number of medical dispensaries, state laws and patients out there it seems ludicrous (if not criminal) for the judge not to reach this conclusion.

    Good Luck guys ! another important step

  24. it appears to me that even the term “substance’ has outlived its meaning and should be revisited. Considering the enormous list of particular products ,features ,chemicals specifically meant and used for nearly endless potential purposes – from hemp fibers ,feed for farm animals , medicine to heal children’s epilepsy , inoperable tumors ,as a natural sleep and relaxation producing agent and so on can not be grouped together and treated as an enemy of State. Does it make my shirt illegal under the law? We could also drop the whole thing and all go home and find ourselves another target for concern like myriad of pharmaceuticals responsible for deadly side effects which kill and maim people.

  25. In New Hampshire they never bothered to construct or publish their controlled drug schedule according to state law, until they clandestinely changed their laws on statutory construction in a vain attempt to cover their tracks.

    Of course they don’t want anyone to know this…because well it’s illegal to prosecute people under an incomplete law.

    If that happened in one small state, could it have happened else where? Nah, “they” would never do that.

  26. The Controlled Substance Act of 1970 is Nixon’s stinky turd on war protesters and everyone else who opposes his policies. Why snuff your enemies when you can arrest and punish them as drug addicts? It’s easier than arresting them as communist sympathizers.

  27. Mr. Armentano is right; Francis Young was a puppet judge for the DEA. This case is in FEDERAL court, presidedby a FEDERAL judge; a judge who is already given the Testimony of Dr. Nolan for the disproportionate incarcerations and historic racial bias of marijuana prohibition as ADMISSABLE EVIDENCE! That means the Government cant even BRING UP an objection to a blatant constitutional violation in the defendant’s affirmative defense.
    The judge is prepared to award the defense. This could go straight to the Supreme Court right after the majority of the U.S. Population will vote Nov. 4th for some form of medical marijuana legislation.
    This is the real deal folks. Holder is waiting on this case.

  28. If MJ can actually get rescheduled, and one or two of the states trying to legalize MJ in this upcoming election succeed, that may be a true tipping point.

  29. Valerie, “Too bad the US Patent On Cannabis (which voids the Sched 1 designation) is AGAINT being ignored. The testimony would be helped by bringing this fact to the surface. The gov’t can’t have it Schedule 1 AND have a US Patent for the medical value, at the SAME time.”

    Can you explain why not? The folks that applied for the patent do not have the “authority” to reclassify marijuana. And the patent is on components found in the marijuana plant and making drugs out of them. Because as they say, marijuana herb is highly addictive and toxic and a gateway drug (even though that gateway is called a fucking PHARMACY) and will make your balls off and you’ll grow man-boobs and everyone’s going to get herpes. Oh maybe they don’t say that last one… Oh yeah, they say you’ll get raped (or get rapey) from using marijuana!

  30. Those patents are about making pills out marijuana plants and synthetic cannabinoids. They pay lip serve to the false idea marijuana plant is toxic. It half true (cannabinoids are medicaly useful) half fiction (whole marijuana is too toxic for people). The same old tired shit we’ve been hearing for years from idiots that don’t seem to understand pills are much more toxic the whole herb marijuana is.

    Of course you can’t consume nightshade, but there is a patent for making medically useful chemicals from it. Just like most poison plants. They are still placing marijuana in the “poison plant” category even as they acknowledge its components are medically useful.

  31. This is just a hearing, and in the Eastern District of California. Is it going nowhere, or is it going somewhere? I’m asking myself if the Eastern District of California nullifies the Schedule I status of cannabis then does that mean cannabis is de fact legal for adult recreational retail within the district’s jurisdiction? I’m sure there will be some local dick law enforcement who will still stand in the way of adult recreational, but what about the ones who don’t. They’ll allow cannabis for adult retail to come out of the closet and into the legal economy. $kaching$! Next I’m asking myself if the Drug Enforcement Administration is going to swoop in with raids. Michele Leonhart herself overseeing the raids from her e-command center in DC? Even if the feds do Not swoop in and mess it up, if adult retail in California comes off without a hitch it portends well for the state’s ballot initiative for legalization. If there are things happening that piss the public off that are not being rectified swiftly we legalizers could lose the ballot initiative. The last thing I want to see. We need the momentum to keep going. Alaska, Oregon, DC and elsewhere 2014, then California in 2016, and hopefully many more states such as Delaware, etc.

  32. I’d like to add that if this hearing leads to a ruling that makes cannabis de facto legal in this district in California, then I’m hoping trading in viable cannabis seeds will also be legal. Most people want the finished product and won’t grow their own. Avid gardeners with sufficient privacy will, and won’t have to settle for either whatever seeds they dig out of their street weed or risking getting ripped off, damaged, lost or confiscated expensive seeds from outfits overseas that CLAIM to deliver worldwide whatever. Legal seeds means the retail cannabis consumer will have public safeguards such as proof that seeds are really New York Diesel or whatever and not just whatever seeds the outfit wants to send you. The cannabis cultivator can count on the seeds being the variety the vendor says it is, and the description the seed producer gives is true and verifiable, you know, like Burpee Seeds and the sort.

    Right now seeds are still not legal for retail sales in Colorado or Washington.

    There will be no U.S. Marc Emery, a U.S. citizen vending viable cannabis seeds from within the U.S., ahem, unless the feds swoop in and f*(! up things. Who will be the U.S. Marc Emery that got away with it, was the first U.S. person to provide quality seeds at a lower price to the masses and NOT get taken down by the feds? Who the next millionaire? Spread that wealth around a little, and make sure your cops and state officials are on your side by ensuring some of the revenues go toward their pensions and pay, back to the community to this and that, things on your community’s list they didn’t have money to pay for before.

  33. While advocating stateside for this change from Schedule 1, let’s couple that with the equally important worldscene attack on the fraudulent condition that a 1961 “Narcotics” Convention (a quasi-drug-law which the US manipulated the UN to adopt) presumes to apply in any way to cannabis which has for decades never been labeled a narcotic by any scientist or authoritative scientific body.

  34. @ D GRAY: Absolutely! Also, we need to dismantle the entire Drug War apparatus, for example, the way the government pays employers to drug test their employees. Yes, drug testing by private business IS a 4th Amendment Rights issue so long as our tax dollars are being used to subcontract private business to violate those rights. It’s on par with the witch hunters of old billing the family of the suspected witch for her torture…I mean, interrogation. When private business is actually paying out of pocket and accepting the massive lost profits that come with drug testing (which was what happened up to the nineties, private business was paying for their own drug testing and most were dropping it due to its complete and total ineffectiveness, so the government stepped in, paid for the drug testing out of tax dollars, and then paid the employers to have this essentially free service of Uncle Sam), then you can say “private business can do what they like”. Until then, you know where to shove it.

    Drugs–all of them, not just marijuana–should NEVER have been made a criminal justice issue. I don’t care how many misinformed or uniformed MJ exceptionalists want to cheerlead for the Drug War just so long as MJ is off the hook, I don’t care what horror stories you want to promote about the dangers and evils of “cokeheads” and the like, the evidence has shown and continues to show that the majority of harms from drugs–ANY drugs, not just MJ–are directly caused by prohibition and the Drug War itself and NOT by the drug. And just because something is dangerous doesn’t mean that it should be outlawed, or didn’t we learn our lesson with Prohibition I against alcohol? Just because you outlaw something doesn’t ensure that it will go away, and it has become clear that a drug-free world is unattainable, esp. through the strongarm tactics and abuses of power used in the Drug War. You know what has been a phenomenal success though? Treating drugs like a public health issue, decriminalizing and even legalizing all drugs, treating users like human beings and not like mangy dogs…basically, a public health/harm reduction/legal and regulated approach brings us far closer to a “drug free society” than the criminal justice/prohibition approach has.

    Isn’t it interesting that the approach to drugs that doesn’t seen to eliminate them is more successful at reducing drug use than the approach that makes drug elimination its entire goal? It’s almost as if the prohibitionist approach isn’t even about drugs at all? But what on earth could their true motivation be? cough, racism, cough

    Anyone who wants to fight me on this needs to look at the DPA website. That’s DPA with a P, not DEA with an E by the way. And read Dr Carl Hart’s book on his groundbreaking research on the actual addictiveness of cocaine and the actual driver of addiction being social and economic conditions rather than the drug itself, and the fatal flaws of all those studies in the sixties that are the basis of the half-baked assumptions you want to puke up at me. And read “The War On Drugs: A Failed Experiment”, which gives even more background and research into the facts about “hard” drugs as well as marijuana. And spend some time at the LEAP (Law Enforcement Against Prohibition) website.

    Because I’m not really into arguing this with people who can’t even bother to know any of the facts. It’s kind of like all the idiots who want to fight with you over marijuana while knowing absolutely nothing other than the reefer-madness lies and propaganda they’ve been brainwashed with as kids and had reinforced as adults, who can’t be bothered to actually educate themselves on marijuana but think they have a valid opinion. Yeah, if you want to weigh in on this and don’t bother to read the facts and simply rely on the same BS the pot prohibitionists rely on, then you are no different from them.

  35. @val
    I share your concern about the apparent absence of U.S. Patent 6630507 from the evidence in U.S. v. Pickard case; however the court case is set for the 27th and the patent could always be brought forth by the defense as surprise testimony. Under California State Law, a plaintiff could have 45 days to reply to a motion to compel the plaintiff, in this case the U.S. Government, to produce documented evidence to deny the defendant’s motion to compel. But this is Federal Court, and there are still 5 days left for the hearing. This would allow the defense to sanction the plaintiff when they fail to produce any supporting evidence in court. The defense’s testimony could then read as follows:
    “The same Department of Health and Human Services that owns U.S. Patent 6630507 for cannabinoids as neuroprotectants also takes state custody of children whose parents use medical marijuana for the same neurodegenerative diseases described in the patent itself, and the testimony of Dr. Nolan, the defenses expert witness. This unconstitutional, completely contradictory policy by an agency whose Secretary of Health has shared authority to declassify marijuana, is indicative of the deplorative state of U.S. Marijuana scheduling system and federal marijuana policy under the Controlled Substance Act, and stands as indisputable evidence of the government’s hypocrisy that forms the basis of the affirmative defense pursuant to FRCP 37; Document 3-1020 was issued to the plaintiff without a certified response with adequate evidence to defend the contradictory prosecution. Therefore the defense motions to sanction the plaintiff for failure to comply and moves the court to remove marijuana from the unjust scheduling system of the Controlled Substance Act of 1970.”

    Perhaps, in lack of the previously described method of Federal defense, there may be some method to the madness in the existing defense; the federal judge in this case has allowed for testimony based on disproportionate incarceration and racial bias in the governments marijuana policy, which will be easier to win in the Supreme Court than fighting a federal patent case. Patenting, even hypocritical ones owned by the U.S. Government, are protected by a variety of Commerce and patenting laws that could add another layer of difficulty if the aim is to deschedule marijuana. In any case, the defense has already established a case of discrimination and hypocritical policy with allowed evidence, and there may not be enough time to compel the plaintiff at this time.
    I believe this case is going to award the defense. As long as the defense doesn’t counterclaim for monetary damages, the Supreme Court will hear the case if the defense remains based solely on Constitutional grounds of the inefficacy of U.S. Marijuana policy. With a win like that in the Supreme Court, and Holder having nothing more to “hold” on to, marijuana will have been effectively rescheduled by our votes November 4th, which will allow the Supreme court to hear the case at all.
    We are witnessing the climax of our American Cannabis Tragedy. Grab your medibles, a vaporizer and some good wifi cause things are fixin to get real good…

  36. Hello JohnnyHempSeed, Actually marijuana will be legal in more places very soon, but very soon still means at least a couple more years 🙁

    This is about medical marijuana, it is more of a test of whether the police have “the right” to arrest legit medical marijuana users for using marijuana correctly.

  37. The people of this country have been lied to long enough..cannabis has alot of uses/ medical use without side affects ,biofuel, rope,paper (stop cutting our trees down)etc. etc.,the reason why we are having so much trouble getting cannabis legal is because tabacco companys alcohol companys perscription drug companys they will loose money ..i read an article that the prisons in oregon are vacant… you see law enforcement dea etc.etc. are loosing money …this country has to much greed in it ..and to big of government controlling the people ,,when will all the corruption stop …let the people decide with a nation wide vote on cannabis …this nation was once controlled by the people// not all these rich people in politics …thanks god for norml keep up the good work,,, we will win …….

  38. I just signed up to drive people to the polls on Election Day. My vote may be small but I sure as hell can do my part to end this Native American, black, and Mexican hating prohibition that offers jail and not education as the only option.

    The Gore Files? Really? Based on what science Harry Anslinger? What testing did you do? What long term effects did you study?

    Cancer, Dravet syndrome, als, autism, obesity, sclaraderma, even the symptoms of Ebola can be helped with this medicine (or caused by the lack of hemp in our food chain). We need to study this plant like its 2014 not 1937.

  39. A country that would let the billionaires destroy human lives for the love of money is a real sick people, both sides are really sick. Cannabis will fix one the other being insanely greedy is the tough one. Blessings.michaellr

  40. “This is just a hearing, and in the Eastern District of California. Is it going nowhere, or is it going somewhere? I’m asking myself if the Eastern District of California nullifies the Schedule I status of cannabis then does that mean cannabis is de fact legal for adult recreational retail within the district’s jurisdiction?”

    Hello Oracle, no this is about “Medical Marijuana” and I do believe it would apply to any state which has “Medical Marijuana Laws”. This is not about “Recreational Marijuana”. States can still designate marijuana as a schedule one substance on their own.

  41. That is part of “States Rights” everyone has been championing of late.

    When really it is a two edged sword!

  42. What I do believe a positive outcome for this case:

    It becomes illegal for police, both federal and local to arrest, prosecute and confiscate (steal) the properties of legitimate Medical Marijuana growers and providers of “Medical Marijuana” in States which have legalized “Medical Marijuana” thus voiding its “Schedule One Status”.

    Police in States without “medical marijuana laws” will still be allowed to arrest real medical users and their providers.

Leave a Reply