| Cannabis Rescheduling In The United States |
Article Index for Cannabis |
Website Links For Cannabis |
Information AboutCannabis Rescheduling In The United States |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT CANNABIS RESCHEDULING IN THE UNITED STATES | |
| cannabis legal reform | |
| united states controlled substances law | |
|
The Controlled Substances Act provides a process for rescheduling controlled substances by petitioning the Drug Enforcement Administration . The first petition under this process was filed in 1972 to allow cannabis to be legally prescribed by physicians. The petition was ultimately denied after 22 years of court challenges, although a pill form of marijuana's psychoactive ingredient, THC, was rescheduled in 1985 to allow prescription under schedule II. In 1999 it was again rescheduled to allow prescription under schedule III. A second petition, based on claims related to clinical studies, was denied in 2001. The most recent rescheduling petition was filed by Medical Marijuana advocates in 2002. BACKGROUND Schedule I
''Examples:'' Heroin , LSD , Marijuana , MDMA (Ecstasy), Methaqualone (Quaalude). Schedule II
''Examples:'' Methadone , Methamphetamine , Methylphenidate (Ritalin), Morphine , Oxycodone (OxyContin), Phencyclidine (PCP). Schedule III
''Examples:'' Anabolic Steroid s, Ketamine (Special K), synthetic THC ( Marinol ). Schedule IV
''Examples:'' Alprazolam (Xanax), Diazepam (Valium). Schedule V
''Examples:'' Certain Codeine preparations; certain Opium preparations. Schedule I is the only category of controlled substances that may not be prescribed by a physician. Under '''', drugs must meet three criteria in order to be placed in Schedule I:
In 1970, Congress placed marijuana into Schedule I on the advice of Assistant Secretary Of Health Roger O. Egeberg . His letter to Harley O. Staggers , Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, indicates that the classification was intended to be provisional: Dear Mr. Chairman: In a prior communication, comments requested by your committee on the scientific aspects of the drug classification scheme incorporated in H.R. 18583 were provided. This communication is concerned with the proposed classification of marijuana. It is presently classed in schedule I(C) along with its active constituents, the tetrahydrocannibinols and other Psychotropic drugs. Some question has been raised whether the use of the plant itself produces "severe psychological or physical dependence" as required by a schedule I or even schedule II criterion. Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marijuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue. If those studies make it appropriate for the Attorney General to change the placement of marijuana to a different schedule, he may do so in accordance with the authority provided under section 201 of the bill. . . Sincerely yours, (signed) Roger O. Egeberg, M.D. The reference to "certain studies" is to the then-forthcoming National Commission On Marijuana And Drug Abuse . In 1972, the Commission released a report favoring decriminalization of marijuana. The Richard Nixon administration took no action to implement the recommendation, however. A protracted struggle ensued in which marijuana reform activists began working through all three branches of government to reschedule the drug. ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST For rescheduling Former director of the National Organization For The Reform Of Marijuana Laws Jon Gettman has argued that marijuana does not fit each of the three statutory criteria for Schedule I. Gettman believes that "high potential for abuse" means that a drug has a potential for abuse similar to that of Heroin or Cocaine .1 Text originally presented at the 12th International Conference on Drug Policy Reform. Gettman argues further that since laboratory animals do not self-administer marijuana, and because marijuana's Toxicity is less than that of heroin or cocaine, marijuana lacks the high abuse potential required for inclusion in Schedule I or II. Gettman also contends: "The acceptance of cannabis' medical use by eight thirteen states since 1996 and the experiences of patients, doctors, and state officials in these states establish marijuana's accepted medical use in the United States." Accepted Medical Use of Cannabis: State Laws. ''The 2002 Petition to Reschedule Cannabis (Marijuana)''. DrugScience.org. Accessed . In his petition, Gettman also argues that marijuana is an acceptably safe medication. He notes that a 1999 . A study published in the March 1 1990 issue of the '' Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences '' stated that "there are virtually no reports of fatal cannabis Overdose in humans" and attributed this safety to the low density of Cannabinoid Receptor s in areas of the Brain controlling breathing and the heart.3 Free full text 4 Gettman claims that the discovery of the cannabinoid receptor system in the late 1980s revolutionized scientific understanding of cannabis' effects and provided further evidence that it does not belong in Schedule I. Against rescheduling In 1992, DEA Administrator . Retrieved on 2007-04-28 .
Marijuana is one of several Hallucinogen s with unproven abuse potential and toxicity that Congress placed in Schedule I. The DEA interprets the Controlled Substances Act to mean that if a drug with even a low potential for abuse — say, equivalent to a Schedule V drug — has no accepted medical use, then it must remain in Schedule I:
The Department Of Health And Human Services rejects the argument that laboratory animals' failure to self-administer marijuana is conclusive proof of its low potential for abuse:
The Food And Drug Administration elaborates on this, arguing that the widespread use of marijuana, and the existence of some heavy users, is evidence of its "high potential for abuse," despite the drug's lack of physiological addictiveness:
The Government also considers the fact that people are willing to risk Scholastic , career and legal problems to use marijuana to be evidence of its high potential for abuse:
PROCESS Marijuana could be rescheduled either Legislatively , through Congress, or through the Executive Branch . Congress has so far rejected all bills to reschedule marijuana. However, it is not unheard of for Congress to intervene in the drug scheduling process; in February 2000, for instance, Congress passed ''Public Law 106-172'', also known as the ''Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reed Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000'',. Retrieved on 2007-04-29 . adding GHB to Schedule I.6 The Controlled Substances Act also provides for a rulemaking process by which the United States Attorney General can reschedule marijuana administratively. These proceedings represent the only means of legalizing Medical Marijuana without an act of Congress. Rescheduling supporters have often cited the lengthy petition review process as a reason why marijuana is still illegal. The first petition took 22 years to review, and the second took 7 years. In 2002, the Coalition For Rescheduling Cannabis filed a third petition. Rulemaking proceedings
The United States Code , under Section 811 of Title 21 ,. Retrieved on 2007-04-28 from Cornell Law School 's Legal Information Institute. sets out a process by which cannabis could be administratively transferred to a less-restrictive category or removed from Controlled Substances Act regulation altogether. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) evaluates petitions to reschedule marijuana. However, the Controlled Substances Act gives the Department Of Health And Human Services (HHS), as successor agency of the Department Of Health, Education, And Welfare , great power over rescheduling decisions. After the DEA accepts the filing of a petition, the agency must request from the HHS 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." The Secretary's findings on scientific and medical issues are binding on the DEA. The HHS Secretary can even unilaterally legalize marijuana: " {Link without Title} f the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance." ''''. Factors Unless an international treaty requires controlling a substance, the Attorney General must, in finding whether the drug meets the three criteria for placement in a particular schedule, consider the following factors:
International treaty requires governments to regulate cannabis cultivation, but does not ban medical use.]] See Also: Cannabis reform at the international level If an international Treaty , Ratified by the U.S., mandates that a drug be controlled, the Attorney General is required to "issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations" without regard to scientific or medical findings.. Retrieved on 2007-04-28 from Cornell Law School 's Legal Information Institute. Under the Single Convention On Narcotic Drugs , cannabis and Cannabis Resin are classified under Schedule IV, that treaty's most strictly controlled category of drugs. . in HTML format. However, ''Article 4(c)'' of the Single Convention specifically excludes medicinal drug use from prohibition, requiring only that Parties "limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs". On the other hand, ''Article 2(5)(b)'' states that for Schedule IV drugs: A Party shall, if in its opinion the prevailing conditions in its country render it the most appropriate means of protecting the public health and welfare, prohibit the production, manufacture, export and import of, trade in, possession or use of any such drug except for amounts which may be necessary for medical and scientific research only, including clinical trials therewith to be conducted under or subject to the direct supervision and control of the Party. The clause "...in its opinion..." refers to a judgment that each nation makes for itself. The official Commentary on the treaty indicates that Parties are required to make the judgment in good faith. Thus, if in the opinion of the United States, limiting cannabis use solely to research purposes would be "the most appropriate means of protecting the public health and welfare," the U.S. would be required to do that. Presumably, this would greatly restrict the possibilities for medical use. Jon Gettman, in ''Science and the End of Marijuana Prohibition'', claims that "if prohibition ends in the U.S. it must also end world-wide because U.S. law requires that we amend international drug control treaties to correspond with our own findings on scientific and medical issues". This is at least partially correct; ''21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(2)(B)'' of the Controlled Substances Act states that if the in HTML format. or a reinterpretation of its provisions that would likely be opposed by the International Narcotics Control Board .8 HISTORY 1972 NORML petition On May 18 1972 , the National Organization For The Reform Of Marijuana Laws (NORML) petitioned the Bureau Of Narcotics And Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) (now the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)) to transfer marijuana to Schedule II so that it could be legally prescribed by physicians. The BNDD declined to initiate proceedings on the basis of their interpretation of U.S. treaty commitments. In 1974, the United States Court Of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Circuit ruled against the government and ordered them to process the petition ( ''NORML V. Ingersoll'' 497 F.2d 654). The government continued to rely on treaty commitments in their interpretation of scheduling-related issues concerning the NORML petition. In 1977, the Court issued a decision clarifying that the Controlled Substances Act requires a full scientific and medical evaluation and the fulfillment of the rescheduling process before treaty commitments can be evaluated (''NORML v. DEA 559 F.2d 735''). On October 16 1980 , the Court ordered the government to start the scientific and medical evaluations required by the NORML petition (''NORML v. DEA Unpublished Disposition, U.S. App. LEXIS 13100''). Meanwhile, some members of Congress were taking action to reschedule the drug legislatively. In 1981, the late Rep. ). Retrieved on 2007-04-28 . It was co-sponsored by a Bipartisan coalition of 84 House members, including prominent Republicans Newt Gingrich ( GA ), Bill McCollum ( FL ), John Porter ( IL ), and Frank Wolf ( VA ).9 Retrieved on 2007-04-28 through Archive.org . After the bill died in committee, Rep. Barney Frank began annually introducing nearly identical legislation.10 All of Frank's bills have suffered the same fate, though, without attracting more than a handful of co-sponsors. On . Parties supporting rescheduling
Parties opposing rescheduling
In the summer of 1986, the DEA administrator initiated public hearings on cannabis rescheduling. The hearings lasted two years, involving many witnesses and thousands of pages of documentation. On September 6 , 1988 , DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young ruled that marijuana did not meet the legal criteria of a Schedule I prohibited drug and should be reclassified. He declared that marijuana in its natural form is "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. (T)he provisions of the (Controlled Substances) Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II".11 Then-DEA Administrator John Lawn overruled Young's determination. Lawn said he decided against re-scheduling marijuana based on testimony and comments from numerous medical doctors who had conducted detailed research and were widely considered experts in their respective fields. Later Administrators agreed. "Those who insist that marijuana has medical uses would serve society better by promoting or sponsoring more legitimate research," former DEA Administrator Robert Bonner opined in 1992. This statement was quoted by the Multidisciplinary Association For Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) in its membership drives.12 In 1994, the D.C. Court Of Appeals finally affirmed the DEA Administrator's power to overrule Judge Young's decision (''Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA. 15 F.3d 1131''). The petition was officially dead. "Each of the doctors testifying on behalf of NORML claimed that his opinion was based on scientific studies, yet with one exception, none could identify, under oath, the scientific studies they relied on," DEA Administrator Thomas A. Constantine remarked in 1995.13 1995 Gettman and ''High Times'' petition On July 10 1995 , Jon Gettman and '' High Times '' Magazine filed another rescheduling petition with the DEA. This time, instead of focusing on marijuana's medical uses, the petitioners claimed that marijuana did not have the "high potential for abuse" required for Schedule I or Schedule II status. They based their claims on studies of the brain's Cannabinoid Receptor system conducted by the National Institute Of Mental Health (NIMH) between 1988 and 1994. In particular, they claim that a 1992 study by M. Herkenham et al,14 "using a lesion-technique, established that there are no cannabinoid receptors in the Dopamine -producing areas of the brain". Other studies, summarized in Gettman's 1997 report ''Dopamine and the Dependence Liability of Marijuana'', showed that marijuana has only an indirect effect on dopamine transmission. This suggested that marijuana's psychoactive effects are produced by a different mechanism than addictive drugs such as Amphetamine , Cocaine , Ethanol , Nicotine , and Opiate s. The National Institute On Drug Abuse , however, continued to publish literature contradicting this finding. For instance, NIDA claims the following in its youth publication ''The Science Behind Drug Abuse'':15 A chemical in marijuana, THC, triggers brain cells to release the chemical dopamine. Dopamine creates good feelings — for a short time. Here's the thing: Once dopamine starts flowing, a user feels the urge to smoke marijuana again, and then again, and then again. Repeated use could lead to addiction, and addiction is a brain disease. In January 1997, the White House theory was "beyond the issues normally considered for medical uses of drugs and should not be a factor in evaluating the therapeutic potential of marijuana or cannabinoids." Both sides claimed that the IOM report supported their position. The DEA publication ''Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana'' interpreted the IOM's statement, "While we see a future in the development of chemically defined cannabinoid drugs, we see little future in smoked marijuana as a medicine," as meaning that smoking marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition.17 Marijuana advocates pointed out that the IOM did not study Vaporizer s, devices which, by heating cannabis to 185°C, release therapeutic cannabinoids while reducing or eliminating ingestion of various Carcinogen s.18 On July 2 1999 , Marinol was again rescheduled, this time from Schedule II to the even less-restrictive Schedule III, while marijuana remained in Schedule I (''64 FR 35928'').19 The petitioners argued that the distinction between the two drugs was arbitrary, and that marijuana should be rescheduled as well. The DEA, however, continued to support Marinol as a method of THC ingestion without harmful smoke inhalation. The DEA published a final denial of Gettman's petition on April 18 , 2001 (''DEA 66 FR 20037 – 20076''). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the agency's decision on May 24 , 2002 , ruling that the petitioners were not sufficiently injured to have standing to challenge DEA's determinations in federal court (''290 F.3d 430'').20 Since the appeal was dismissed on a technicality, it is unknown what position the Court would have taken on the merits of the case. 2002 Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis petition On October 9 2002 , the Coalition For Rescheduling Cannabis filed another petition.21 Text of petition available at 22 The new organization consisted of medical marijuana patients and other petitioners who would be more directly affected by the DEA's decision. On April 3 2003 , the DEA accepted the filing of that petition. According to Jon Gettman, "In accepting the petition the DEA has acknowledged that the Coalition has established a legally significant argument in support of the recognition of the accepted medical use of cannabis in the United States." Gettman speculates that if marijuana is removed from Schedule I, three possible outcomes are that marijuana could be:23
In a footnote to the majority decision in '' Gonzales V. Raich '', Justice John Paul Stevens said that if the scientific evidence offered by medical marijuana supporters is true, it would "cast serious doubt" on the Schedule I classification.24 SEE ALSO FOOTNOTES REFERENCES
EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|