US court rejects bid to reclassify marijuana (Update 2)

by Frederic J. Frommer

A U.S. appeals court Tuesday rejected a petition to reclassify marijuana from its current federal status as a dangerous drug with no accepted medical use.

The appeals court panel denied the bid from three medical marijuana groups, including Americans for Safe Access, and several individuals. In 2011, the Drug Enforcement Administration had rejected a petition by medical marijuana advocates to change the classification.

In his majority opinion, Judge Harry T. Edwards wrote that the question wasn't whether marijuana could have some medical benefits, but rather whether the DEA's decision was "arbitrary and capricious." The court concluded that the agency action survived a review under that standard.

The ruling came just months after Colorado and Washington legalized marijuana for recreational use. Last month, President Barack Obama said that federal authorities have bigger priorities than pursuing recreational drug users in those states.

In the federal system, marijuana is classified as a controlled substance, categorized as having a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use, together with drugs like heroin, LSD and ecstasy.

The court noted that the DEA denied the petition to change the classification after the Department of Health and Human Services gave the DEA its evaluation that marijuana lacks a currently accepted medical use in the United States.

DEA regulations define "currently accepted medical use" to require, among other things, "adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy."

Americans for Safe Access cited more than 200 peer-reviewed published studies demonstrating marijuana's efficacy for various medical uses, including a 1999 study by the respected Institute of Medicine, a government adviser on health issues.

"The IOM report does indeed suggest that marijuana might have medical benefits," the court conceded. "However, the DEA fairly construed this report as calling for 'more and better studies to determine potential medical applications of marijuana' and not as sufficient proof of medical efficacy itself."

Joe Elford, chief counsel with Americans for Safe Access, said his group will likely file a petition for rehearing. Failing that, it would seek a rehearing of the full appeals court. If that isn't successful, he said the group would probably appeal to the Supreme Court.

Elford said that while he was disappointed by the ruling, he said it "lays the groundwork for future cases."

"I kind of take it as, 'Come back to us when those studies are completed if they actually demonstrate medical efficacy,' " Elford said.

The DEA referred questions to the Justice Department, which also did not immediately respond.

not rated yet
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US governors seek federal marijuana clearance

Dec 01, 2011

A pair of US governors have filed a petition asking the US federal government to allow wider use of medical marijuana by authorizing doctors to prescribe it and pharmacies to provide it.

Recommended for you

WHO: Millions of Ebola vaccine doses ready in 2015

Oct 24, 2014

The World Health Organization says millions of doses of two experimental Ebola vaccines could be ready for use in 2015 and five more experimental vaccines will start being tested in March.

Added benefit of vedolizumab is not proven

Oct 23, 2014

Vedolizumab (trade name Entyvio) has been approved since May 2014 for patients with moderately to severely active Crohn disease or ulcerative colitis. In an early benefit assessment pursuant to the Act on the Reform of the ...

Seaweed menace may yield new medicines

Oct 22, 2014

An invasive seaweed clogging up British coasts could be a blessing in disguise. University of Greenwich scientists have won a cash award to turn it into valuable compounds which can lead to new, life-saving drugs.

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Argiod
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2013
I'm sure massive donations of money to politicians from big pharmaceutical companies had something to do with this; and with the continuing suppression of any research which might dispute the standing that there is 'no accepted medical use'.