Connect with us

Politics

Federal Judge Dismisses Marijuana Lawsuit

Published

on

A federal district court judge in Manhattan has dismissed a lawsuit challenging marijuana’s status under the Controlled Substances Act.

Plaintiffs in the case, which argues that cannabis is improperly classified in the most restrictive category of Schedule I, include former NFL player Marvin Washington and a 12-year-old girl who treats epilepsy with medical marijuana.

Attorneys and plantiffs told Marijuana Moment in advance of oral arguments earlier this month that they were hopeful the case would force the federal government to finally reschedule marijuana.

But Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ruled on Monday that advocates have “failed to exhaust their administrative remedies” to alter cannabis’s legal status, and should pursue changes through the administration and Congress instead of in the courts.

“[P]laintiffs’ claim is an administrative one, not one premised on the constitution,” he wrote, and “is best understood as a collateral attack on the various administrative determinations not to reclassify marijuana into a different drug schedule.”

Federal Courts Hear Major Marijuana Cases This Week

Legalization advocates have long argued that marijuana is improperly classified in Schedule I, which is supposed to be reserved for drugs with no medical value and a high potential for abuse. A key claim of the lawsuit is that there is no rational basis for that categorization.

But Hellerstein wrote that “it is clear that Congress had a rational basis for classifying marijuana in Schedule I, and executive officials in different administrations have consistently retained its placement there… Even if marijuana has current medical uses, I cannot say that Congress acted irrationally in placing marijuana in Schedule I.”

However, the judge, who observers say appeared moved by anecdotes about the plaintiffs’ medical uses of cannabis during oral arguments, wrote that he does not reject out of hand the notion that marijuana can be beneficial:

“I emphasize that this decision is not on the merits of plaintiffs’ claim. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, which I must accept as true for the purpose of this motion, claims that the use of medical marijuana has, quite literally, saved their lives. One plaintiff in this case, Alexis Bortell, suffers from intractable epilepsy, a severe seizure disorder that once caused her to experience multiple seizures every day. After years of searching for viable treatment options, Alexis began using medical marijuana. Since then, she has gone nearly three years without a single seizure. Jagger Cotte, another plaintiff in the case, suffers from a rare, congenital disease known as Leigh’s disease, which kills approximately 95% of those afflicted before they reach the age of four. After turning to medical marijuana, Jagger’s life has been extended by two years and his pain has become manageable. I highlight plaintiffs’ experience to emphasize that this decision should not be understood as a factual finding that marijuana lacks any medical use in the United States, for the authority to make that determination is vested in the administrative process.”

Also in the opinion, Hellerstein ruled that one plaintiff, the Cannabis Cultural Association, lacks standing to sue.

“Plaintiffs’ racial animus claim is based on a patchwork of statements by former Nixon Administration officials, many of which were made after the passage of the CSA,” he wrote. “Even taking these allegations as true, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the relevant decisionmaker — Congress — passed the CSA and placed marijuana in Schedule I in order to intentionally discriminate against African Americans.”

Hellerstein dismissed every other claim in the lawsuit, as well, making it clear he’s done with the case.

“Because plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under any constitutional theory, all of plaintiffs’ remaining claims are also dismissed,” he wrote. “For the reasons stated herein, defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint is granted. Plaintiffs have already amended their complaint once, and I find that further amendments would be futile.”

Joseph Bondy, an attorney on the case, said the legal team is considering their next steps.

“We believe the court didn’t properly consider our arguments, even declining to allow us to be heard on some points—particularly our equal protection argument,” he told Marijuana Moment. “We are exploring all options in furtherance of winning this case, whether through direct appeal or reconsideration, and will keep the community abreast of all developments. The legal team remains committed to the case and the cause, and thanks everyone for their unwavering support.”

Read Hellerstein’s full opinion below:

Federal Judge Dismisses Marijuana Lawsuit by tomangell on Scribd

If you value staying updated on cannabis news, please start a monthly Patreon pledge to support Marijuana Moment!

Tom Angell is the editor of Marijuana Moment. A 15-year veteran in the cannabis law reform movement, he covers the policy and politics of marijuana. Separately, he serves as chairman of the nonprofit Marijuana Majority. Previously he reported for Marijuana.com and MassRoots, and handled media relations and campaigns for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition and Students for Sensible Drug Policy. (Organization citations are for identification only and do not constitute an endorsement or partnership.)

Politics

Opposition Group’s Marijuana Poll Shows Strong Support for Legalization

Published

on

A new survey of Michigan voters, funded by an organization opposed to the state’s marijuana legalization initiative, showed large support for reform and weaning support for prohibition.

The survey of 800 Michigan residents, which was conducted from May 1 to May 6, was orchestrated by Healthy and Productive Michigan.

Before being prompted with arguments for and against the initiative—which surpassed the required signatures to qualify for the state’s November ballot last month—respondents favored full cannabis legalization 48 percent to 42 percent, with 11 percent remaining undecided, according to the survey.

Arguments in favor of the proposed initiative, including increased tax revenue for public programs such as education funding and infrastructure, caused opposition to the initiative to drop to 36 percent. Support remained at 48 percent.

And then, even after the polling firm Victory Phones provided arguments opposing the initiative, support for legalization grew by one percent to 49 percent. Opposition ended up at 38 percent.

“Previous polls showing majority support didn’t pass the smell test. When polling, it is always important to review how the questions are asked and what size of audience responds,” Healthy and Productive Michigan’s President Scott Greenlee said in a press release. “Our poll pointed out arguments on both sides of the issue in a consistent and unbiased manner, and the fieldwork was conducted by the highly respected Victory Phones, who have a nearly 10 year track record of accurately measuring election results in Michigan.”

But the truth is that the prohibitionist organization’s poll showed that support for the legalization measure outweighs opposition, and that’s even more true after voters hear prohibitionist’s best arguments.

The share of voters who said they planned to vote against the measure dropped seven percentage points after they were read Healthy and Productive Michigan’s reasons for wanting to defeat it. Support rose one percentage point.

The proposed Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act would permit adults 21 and older to legally possess, grow and consume small amounts of marijuana. Specifically, adults would be allowed to grow up to 12 total cannabis plants in a single residence, and possess 2.5 ounces outside their homes and store 10 ounces at home.

Healthy and Productive Michigan did not respond to a request for comment by the time of publication.

See the full poll below:

Michigan Marijuana Poll by tomangell on Scribd

Michigan Marijuana Legalization Ballot Measure Has Enough Signatures

Photo courtesy of Chris Wallis // Side Pocket Images.

If you value staying updated on cannabis news, please start a monthly Patreon pledge to support Marijuana Moment!
Continue Reading

Politics

Marijuana Isn’t Addictive, Former A.G. Eric Holder Says

Published

on

The nation’s former top law enforcement officer is not worried that the legalization of marijuana will lead to addiction.

“I’ve never seen any scientific evidence that points you to concerns about addiction through the use of marijuana,” former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said in an interview published on Friday by NY1.

The comments by the former A.G. call into question cannabis’s current status as a Schedule I drug. That category is supposed to be reserved only for substances with no medical value and a high potential for abuse. In fact, it would mean that marijuana should be moved to at least Schedule III, where drugs with “moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence” are categorized.

Although Holder did not move to reclassify cannabis when he had the power to do so as attorney general, he did specifically endorse such a change just months after leaving office.

“I certainly think it ought to be rescheduled,” he said in a 2015 interview with PBS.

And he still feels the same way.

“We need to move marijuana from Schedule I, so research can be done,” Holder said in the new NY1 interview. “It is classified now on the same level as heroin is, and clearly that is inappropriate.”

While he did nothing to officially recategorize marijuana as attorney general — and continually passed the buck to Congress when asked about the issue — Holder’s Justice Department did issue guidance, known as the Cole Memo, which generally allowed states to implement their own cannabis laws without federal interference.

Current Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded that memo earlier this year.

In the new interview, Holder said he thinks the federal government should continue letting states implement their own legalization laws.

“Let those be laboratories to see where we want to be,” he said. “I think if you allow the states to experiment we’ll ultimately come to a national consensus about what it is we ought to do with regard to marijuana.”

He also spoke about unfair enforcement of cannabis criminalization.

“One of the things that I am concerned about, though, is the racial disparity you see in the enforcement of marijuana laws,” he said. “You see African Americans, Latinos using marijuana at just about the same rates as whites, and yet seeing rates of arrest four, five times as great as it is for whites. That is something that I think is extremely troubling.”

Photo courtesy of US Embassy New Zealand.

If you value staying updated on cannabis news, please start a monthly Patreon pledge to support Marijuana Moment!
Continue Reading

Politics

Congressional Committee Protects Medical Marijuana From Jeff Sessions

Published

on

A powerful congressional panel voted on Thursday to continue shielding medical marijuana patients and providers who comply with state laws from prosecution by the federal government.

While the provision has been federal law since 2014, when it was first attached to legislation that funds the U.S. Department of Justice, its continuance has been in question because of recent efforts by Republican leadership to prevent votes on cannabis amendments. But in a stunning bipartisan move, the House Appropriations Committee voted to add the provision as a rider to legislation funding U.S. Attorney General Jeff Session’s department for Fiscal Year 2019.

Please visit Forbes to read the rest of this piece.

(Marijuana Moment’s editor provides some content to Forbes via a temporary exclusive publishing license arrangement.)

If you value staying updated on cannabis news, please start a monthly Patreon pledge to support Marijuana Moment!
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Stay Up To The Moment

Marijuana News
In Your Inbox

Support Marijuana Moment