"Thanks. It just seems to me "currently accepted medical use" is pretty unambiguous, there is SOME, that is, other than none, currently accepted medical use so

"Thanks. It just seems to me "currently accepted medical use" is pretty unambiguous, there is SOME, that is, other than none, currently accepted medical use so their definition is wrong on its face. I'm surprised that nobody told them "Look, you're using English wrong(ly)" as a way to challenge the law." Their classification of marijuana as having "no accepted medical use" is silly on its face, and I hope I adequately gave that impression in my comment. I'm not agreeing with it. I'm just pointing it out. Unfortunately, changing the DEA's opinion is harder than just sending them the medical literature, and pointing out the contradictions in their position. This is a problem that needs to be addressed through the legislative process. (The DEA follows federal policy; it doesn't necessarily establish or alter federal policy). Fortunately, change is happening at the state level. If we reach the point where most states recognize medical uses for marijuana, then eventually, the federal government will have to cave on its hard line. Or so the thinking goes. English is indeed a complex language, and it's also filled with the sorts of loaded terms with which lawyers have a field day. For instance, consider the word "accepted" in the phrase "accepted medical use." Accepted by whom? Who decides whether to officially "accept" a medical use? Is it the DEA? Is it the medical and scientific community? Is it the legislative branch of the federal government? Is it the judicial branch? Is it someone else? If this issue were ever to come to court, the DEA could argue that there is no "accepted" consensus. It would be a weaselly argument, but English is a fantastic language for weaselly, semantic arguments like that.