Efforts to have cannabis rescheduled were moved forward last week by a 2-to-1 ruling of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City, finding that the\u00a0Drug Enforcement Administration must \u201cact promptly\u201d if formally petitioned to take another look at the question. \u00a0<\/p>\n
The May 31 decision came in a case originally filed as\u00a0Washington vs. Sessions<\/em>, although Jeff Sessions has since stepped down as attorney general. It challenged the DEA\u2019s refusal to reconsider in a timely manner the current classification of cannabis as a\u00a0Schedule I<\/a>\u00a0controlled substance \u2014 the most restrictive category under the federal Controlled Substances Act, along with heroin. Morphine and cocaine, in contrast, are actually in the less restrictive Schedule II.<\/p>\n The case was brought by the\u00a0Cannabis Cultural Association<\/a>\u00a0and is named for one its co-plaintiffs, retired professional football player and Super Bowl Champion Marvin Washington, who aspires to obtain grants under the\u00a0Federal Minority Business Enterprise<\/a>\u00a0program for cannabis businesses \u2014 specifically ones that would make cannabis available to sports professionals and others to reduce\u00a0opioid dependency and addiction<\/a>. Another co-plaintiff is disabled Iraq combat veteran Jose Belen, who uses medical cannabis to control his post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD.<\/p>\n The Second Circuit ruling does not actually decide the case but places it in abeyance while calling upon the DEA to ensure that any rescheduling petition is adjudicated with \u201calacrity,\u201d as in sooner rather than later. The DEA, despite being a law enforcement agency under the Justice Department, rather than a scientific or medical body, has responsibility for determining the classification status of cannabis under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act.<\/p>\n \u201cThe record makes clear that the CSA doesn\u2019t make any rational sense, and the federal government knows it,\u201d said Michael Hiller, lead counsel in the case, in a\u00a0press statement<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Second Circuit actually seemed to echo this sentiment. \u201cIt is possible that the current law, though rational once, is now heading towards irrationality; it may even conceivably be that it has gotten there already,\u201d\u00a0wrote Judge Guido Calabresi, according to the\u00a0Associated Press<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cA sensible response to our evolving understanding about the effects of marijuana might require creating new policies just as much as changing old ones,\u201d Calabresi added in the majority opinion, noting that the plaintiffs claimed cannabis has extended their lives, stopped seizures and made pain manageable. \u00a0\u201cIf true, these are no small things. Plaintiffs should not be required to live indefinitely with uncertainty about their access to allegedly life-saving medication or live in fear that pursuing such medical treatment may subject them or their loved ones to devastating consequences.\u201d<\/p>\n In a statement to Cannabis Now upon the Second Circuit ruling, the Cannabis Cultural Association said, \u201cOur legal team will continue the fight\u2026 Next step will be the petition.\u201d The DEA last\u00a0turned down<\/a>\u00a0a bid\u00a0to reschedule cannabis in August 2016.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, in the eagerness for progress on the rescheduling or descheduling of cannabis, some irresponsible media reports are seizing upon the legal ambiguities<\/a>\u00a0left in the wake of last year\u2019s federal Farm Bill. That landmark law legalized hemp \u2014 defined as cannabis with less than 0.3% THC \u2014 and descheduled both CBD derived from hemp and the THC in hemp.<\/p>\n Since it passed in December, the federal bureaucracy has been\u00a0struggling to catch up with the law<\/a>, bringing regulations into conformity with the requirements of a legal market in hemp and hemp-derived CBD. Late in May,\u00a0Real Money<\/a>\u00a0website made note of a recent such effort, and headlined a story: \u201cThe USDA Legalized THC\u2014But No One Noticed.\u201d<\/p>\n The account says \u201cIt slipped under the radar\u2026 but the United States Department of Agriculture just descheduled tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). The USDA issued a bulletin on May 28 as a legal opinion for hemp production. It basically authorizes interstate delivery of hemp and legalized THC derived from hemp.\u201d<\/p>\n Mark Singleton, the owner of Singleton Investments, is quoted saying \u201cThis removes the argument of 0.3% THC.\u201d The report elaborates: \u201cIf hemp THC is legal then it doesn\u2019t matter whether it is 0.3% or not.\u201d<\/p>\n Actually, yes it does. The\u00a0USDA memo<\/a>\u00a0concerns protocols for interstate commerce in hemp, and says nothing about \u201chemp-derived\u201d THC. (That is the phrase used in the law for other cannabinoids, e.g. CBD, and quite specifically\u00a0not<\/em> for THC.) The memo does refer, repeatedly, to \u201cTHC in hemp\u201d\u2014that is, the minuscule amount naturally occurring in cannabis varieties classified as hemp. So, alas, the 0.3% threshold remains entirely relevant.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the USDA has no authority to reschedule cannabis or THC. Only the DEA can do that \u2014 or Congress, which gave the DEA the authority to oversee scheduling back in 1970. Various bills to reschedule or deschedule cannabis are currently\u00a0pending on Capitol Hill<\/a>.<\/p>\n The Second Circuit ruling brings us one step closer to that eventuality. But there is no percentage in wishful thinking.<\/p>\n TELL US<\/strong>, do you think cannabis should be descheduled or rescheduled?<\/p>\n The post U.S. Appeals Court Orders DEA to Consider Cannabis Rescheduling Petition<\/a> appeared first on Cannabis Now<\/a>.<\/p>\n
Efforts to have cannabis rescheduled were moved forward last week by a 2-to-1 ruling of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City, finding that the\u00a0Drug Enforcement Administration must \u201cact promptly\u201d if formally petitioned to take another look at the question. \u00a0 The May 31 decision cameContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":190,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[50,10201,7557,136,848,6846,10202,90,3329,420],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35849"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/190"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35849"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35849\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":35850,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35849\/revisions\/35850"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35849"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35849"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35849"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Court Mandates DEA \u2018Alacrity\u2019<\/strong><\/h4>\n
But Don\u2019t Believe the Hype<\/h4>\n
\n
\nRead More: U.S. Appeals Court Orders DEA to Consider Cannabis Rescheduling Petition<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"