I made the argument that state law proves accepted medical use in the United States (in a state, or several states) in 2013, based on Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1987). I was one of the petitioners in 1988 when the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics and NORML stipulated to limit the argument to Schedule II and I filed a formal objection to it after I got a copy of it saying I had stipulated to it. Not that it matters, case law at that time said international treaties required no lower than Schedule II, so I don't know if my objection was even valid (I just could not agree it belongs in Schedule II). But, my argument was based on an assumption that state law was going to bear positive results (evidence). It was the evidence from those state laws that made all the difference here. And, the international treaty was amended in December of 2020, explicitly recognizing cannabis has medical value. So, here we are. Does cannabis have a high potential for abuse? Maybe all these crazy knock-off synthetics do, which is what we got for 50 years of nonsense.
And, wasn't it you, Matt (or maybe Shane, or maybe both of you), that got the DEA to admit it was in violation of the international treaties for 50 years at the Mississippi pot farm? So, like the five part test of old, regulations change. Agency interpretations of law change. Nothing wrong with that, especially when they change for the better. HHS has never had this kind of state data to look at before, so how could it know 50 years ago it would ever see data like this?
You do a wonderful job of staying on top of this, and I love the way you give credit to SAM for staying involved!
Easy arriving Marijuana approaches when ordered. Cannabis is not a flaw issue for Android users to use.
I made the argument that state law proves accepted medical use in the United States (in a state, or several states) in 2013, based on Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881 (1st Cir. 1987). I was one of the petitioners in 1988 when the Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics and NORML stipulated to limit the argument to Schedule II and I filed a formal objection to it after I got a copy of it saying I had stipulated to it. Not that it matters, case law at that time said international treaties required no lower than Schedule II, so I don't know if my objection was even valid (I just could not agree it belongs in Schedule II). But, my argument was based on an assumption that state law was going to bear positive results (evidence). It was the evidence from those state laws that made all the difference here. And, the international treaty was amended in December of 2020, explicitly recognizing cannabis has medical value. So, here we are. Does cannabis have a high potential for abuse? Maybe all these crazy knock-off synthetics do, which is what we got for 50 years of nonsense.
And, wasn't it you, Matt (or maybe Shane, or maybe both of you), that got the DEA to admit it was in violation of the international treaties for 50 years at the Mississippi pot farm? So, like the five part test of old, regulations change. Agency interpretations of law change. Nothing wrong with that, especially when they change for the better. HHS has never had this kind of state data to look at before, so how could it know 50 years ago it would ever see data like this?
You do a wonderful job of staying on top of this, and I love the way you give credit to SAM for staying involved!
Interesting analysis. It can be difficult to take SAM seriously as they cherry-pick facts...