3 ms·

I'm waiting for a marijuana case of some kind to come before the Federal courts.

by cbd1984 12y ago

Alex3917 12y ago
Already happened, the ruling is going to come within the next three weeks: http://blog.norml.org/2015/02/12/federal-judge-hears-closing-arguments-in-constitutional-challenge-to-cannabis-schedule-i-status/ http://blog.norml.org/2015/02/12/federal-judge-hears-closing...
- MichaelGG 12y ago
  > "It is unimaginable to believe that if heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, or even over-the-counter medications were being distributed in 23 states and the District of Columbia, Congress and the President would abdicate all regulatory authority to those jurisdictions, and then cut off all funds … to intervene in related distribution activities" What does this quote mean? I'm having trouble parsing it properly. Also, in the US, methamphetamine is a legal Schedule II drug for ADHD and obesity.
  - Alex3917 12y ago
    They're saying that if 23 states had legalized heroin then the government would have intervened to stop them. So the fact that the government hasn't intervened shows that it isn't as dangerous as other schedule I drugs, and therefore shouldn't be schedule I. (Even though as you say cocaine and methamphetamine are both legal by prescription, and heroin is basically legal as well in the form of morphine, but whatever.)
- zxcvcxz 12y ago
  What does it realistically mean if this judge finds that marijuana is improperly scheduled? Does marijuana become default legal? Does it defer to the state laws? Does the process of re-scheduling start? etc.
- SapphireSun 12y ago
  IANAL, but I'd be very surprised if this case ends up doing anything. The case is subject to "rational basis" review, the weakest form of review. As is mentioned in the article, the government correctly argues that congress doesn't even have to be right, it just has to have a "rational basis" for its action. In fact, the so long as the court can imagine a rational basis of action, even one that is totally unrelated to the legislative history, the government can prevail. The government can easily argue a rational basis by saying "Drugs are bad mkay? While there may be some medicinal uses (which we deny), even if they existed we think that there are better substitutes distilled by pharmaceutical companies in each case presented by the plaintiffs. The government has a legitimate interest in promoting the health of the nation. Therefore, by demonstrating a legitimate interest and precluding medicinal uses, schedule I is rational." Not that I believe this is good policy mind you, just that arguing under these conditions is unlikely to lead to change. http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/01/challenging-laws-3-levels-of-scrutiny-explained.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/01/challenging-la...

I'm waiting for a marijuana case of some kind to come before the Federal courts.

by cbd1984 12y ago

I'm waiting for a marijuana case of some kind to come before the Federal courts.

Already happened, the ruling is going to come within the next three weeks: http://blog.norml.org/2015/02/12/federal-judge-hears-closing-arguments-in-constitutional-challenge-to-cannabis-schedule-i-status/ http://blog.norml.org/2015/02/12/federal-judge-hears-closing...

MichaelGG 12y ago
> "It is unimaginable to believe that if heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, or even over-the-counter medications were being distributed in 23 states and the District of Columbia, Congress and the President would abdicate all regulatory authority to those jurisdictions, and then cut off all funds … to intervene in related distribution activities" What does this quote mean? I'm having trouble parsing it properly. Also, in the US, methamphetamine is a legal Schedule II drug for ADHD and obesity.
- Alex3917 12y ago
  They're saying that if 23 states had legalized heroin then the government would have intervened to stop them. So the fact that the government hasn't intervened shows that it isn't as dangerous as other schedule I drugs, and therefore shouldn't be schedule I. (Even though as you say cocaine and methamphetamine are both legal by prescription, and heroin is basically legal as well in the form of morphine, but whatever.)
zxcvcxz 12y ago
What does it realistically mean if this judge finds that marijuana is improperly scheduled? Does marijuana become default legal? Does it defer to the state laws? Does the process of re-scheduling start? etc.
SapphireSun 12y ago
IANAL, but I'd be very surprised if this case ends up doing anything. The case is subject to "rational basis" review, the weakest form of review. As is mentioned in the article, the government correctly argues that congress doesn't even have to be right, it just has to have a "rational basis" for its action. In fact, the so long as the court can imagine a rational basis of action, even one that is totally unrelated to the legislative history, the government can prevail. The government can easily argue a rational basis by saying "Drugs are bad mkay? While there may be some medicinal uses (which we deny), even if they existed we think that there are better substitutes distilled by pharmaceutical companies in each case presented by the plaintiffs. The government has a legitimate interest in promoting the health of the nation. Therefore, by demonstrating a legitimate interest and precluding medicinal uses, schedule I is rational." Not that I believe this is good policy mind you, just that arguing under these conditions is unlikely to lead to change. http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/01/challenging-laws-3-levels-of-scrutiny-explained.html http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2014/01/challenging-la...