Court to consider DEA classification of marijuana

WASHINGTON — Medical marijuana users will get a long-awaited day in the nation’s second-highest federal court next week, when California-based activists argue for looser regulations.

While voters in Washington and two other Western states are preparing to vote on legalizing recreational pot use, the California activists hope to redefine how the federal government classifies the drug. The case, years in the making, could turn federal law enforcement on its head.

“It’s symbolic, and it’s extremely important,” Kris Hermes, spokesman for Americans for Safe Access, said in a telephone interview Friday, “and it will force the federal government to rethink how it addresses this issue.”

The drug regulation dispute will be taken up Tuesday by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is influential because it oversees many federal agency decisions. The half-hour oral argument, pitting Americans for Safe Access against the Obama administration’s Justice Department, is the latest step in a drug regulation case begun a decade ago.

Based in Oakland, Calif., home base for the nation’s medical marijuana movement, Americans for Safe Access is challenging the Drug Enforcement Administration’s continued classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug. Schedule I drugs, which also include the likes of heroin, are officially deemed to have a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use.

The DEA last year upheld the agency’s strict marijuana classification following extended review, and the Justice Department argues the appellate court need not second-guess this decision.

“There was no available evidence of adequate, well-controlled studies demonstrating marijuana’s safety and effectiveness as a medicine and no consensus among experts as to these issues,” Justice Department attorneys Lena Watkins and Anita J. Gay advised the appellate court in a legal brief. “The enactment of state laws allowing the use of marijuana for medical purposes did not constitute the required science-based evidence.”

Watkins and Gay further cited the “extensive illicit domestic and international trafficking of marijuana as evidence of the widespread use and abuse” of the drug.

An estimated 16.7 million U.S. residents currently use marijuana, according to the most recent federal surveys. Among 12th-graders, an estimated one in five had used pot within the past month, according to a 2010 survey.

One user has been Parrish, Fla., resident Cathy Jordan, who says marijuana relieves the debilitating symptoms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, also known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease. Another user has been Air Force veteran Michael Krawitz, a Virginia resident in chronic pain from a car accident. A third has been Rick Steeb, a San Jose, Calif., resident in his early 60s who says marijuana has eased the pain of glaucoma.

“I am afraid to cultivate sufficient amounts of marijuana for this purpose because I fear a federal criminal prosecution for doing so,” Steeb said in a legal declaration. “If marijuana were rescheduled, I believe I would be afforded a medical necessity defense.”

Jordan, Steeb and Krawitz are the human faces put forth on the medical marijuana petition, but their personal stories will likely remain in the background during the Tuesday morning court hearing.

Instead, the three judges — two appointed by Democratic presidents, one appointed by a Republican — will zero in on several key legal disputes.

The first crucial test is whether the medical marijuana advocates have the standing, or legal right, to file the lawsuit in the first place. The Justice Department argues the advocates can’t show they suffered the kind of harm needed to bring a case.

If the judges agree, they can dismiss the challenge and avoid the trickier question of whether the DEA acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in rejecting the original 2002 petition seeking reclassification of marijuana. It took five years for the Department of Health and Human Services to complete its evaluation and recommendations, and another four years for the DEA to issue its decision.

Advocates say regulators ignored several hundred peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy of medical marijuana, as well as the medical marijuana laws passed by Alaska, California, Washington and 13 other states.

“They just blew it on the science,” Americans for Safe Access attorney Joseph D. Elford said in an interview Friday.

The appellate court will probably not rule on removing marijuana from the restrictive Schedule I status. It could, however, order the DEA to take a more in-depth look at the available evidence. If this happens, advocates maintain marijuana could be classified as a potentially useful drug that can be safely used under medical supervision.

More in Local News

Child porn found in forest treehouse and Mill Creek home

Daniel Wood, 56, has been charged with two counts of possession of child pornography.

The rules: You can’t put just anything on your vanity plate

The state keeps a “banned list” of character combinations that will automatically be denied.

Driver killed in crash identified as Monroe man

Anthony Ray Vannelli Jr. died of blunt force injuries. He was 37.

Edmonds man gets nearly 14 years for murder of roommate

Derrick Crawford, 22, admitted that he shot and intended to kill 27-year-old Joshua Werner.

Motorcyclist seriously hurt in Everett hit-and-run

Police are searching for the driver and a gray Dodge Stratus with extensive front-end damage.

Masked gunman sought in shooting at house near Darrington

The suspect — a neighbor — is still at large. There were no injuries reported, but a television was hit.

‘Working together again like we did back then’ to save fish

Tribes and agencies convene to continue the fight to save salmon — in the name of Billy Frank Jr.

Rape involving students reported at Sultan Middle School

The school district and sheriff’s office are saying little, but officials sought to dispel rumors.

Sound Transit lobbies Congress to keep Lynnwood line funded

President Trump wants to cut a $1.17 billion grant. Bipartisans in Congress could preserve it.

Most Read