4 votes

Appeals Court Rules in Favor of DEA and Schedule I on Marijuana's Classification

Reason.com: The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. ruled today in favor of the DEA's decision to keep marijuana a Schedule I drug--a classification for substances that are highly addictive and have no widely accepted medical benefits.

"On the merits, the question before the court is not whether marijuana could have some medical benefits," reads the court's ruling in Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration. Rather, the court was tasked with deciding whether the DEA was following its own rules in refusing to initiate reschedule proceedings for marijuana.

According to the appeals court, the DEA was following its own rules (there are five in all) when it claimed that petitioners for rescheduling marijuana had failed to provide "adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy."

Continue reading at Reason.com

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Noone should give a shit about the DEA classifications.

Every single federal drug law is repugnant to the Constitution and void from the time it was enacted into law. Holds no legal power to enforce.
Marbury vs Madison 1803

The whole War on drugs is an illegal operation in violation of the 4th, 9th and 10th amendments.

Free includes debt-free!

Michael Nystrom's picture

That may be true


The Feds are the ones enforcing the laws, and they've got the big guns on their side. This is an important development to watch.

The States have made their opening salvo, nullifying existing federal law by legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use. This is the Fedales' return volley. Where does it go from here?

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance. - Alan Watts

Correct. This is an important topic for discussion.

Individual, Jury and State nullifications will have important roles to play.

My original title title was "Who gives a ...

Besides the emotional outburst, I edited it to "no one".

Of course, it is an important topic. The laws are null and void as they are repugnant to the Constitution.

As you point out, there are severe consequences to arguing with thugs with guns and prisons.

I've noticed others as well as myself, not clearly identifying the culprit.

The OP, the topic, the players in the article. It's the pronoun ambiguity raising its head.

Instead of taking due care originally, I am correcting the ambiguity that I created.

Free includes debt-free!