Feature: DEA Rejects Yet Another Rescheduling Petition, But the End Ga

[grace]

Feature: DEA Rejects Yet Another Rescheduling Petition, But the End Game Lies Far Down the Road

Drug War Chronicle, Issue #567

Stop the Drug War

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/567/DE...duling_petition

 

The DEA has rejected yet another petition seeking to remove marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), this one from Iowa-based marijuana reformer Carl Olsen. It is only the latest petition rejection by the agency in a glacially-paced struggle to reschedule marijuana that has been going on since 1972.

 

But Olsen and other advocates of the rescheduling tactic say that is to be expected, and the rejection is only the opening phase of this particular battle, not the end of the line. And while Olsen heads to federal court to challenge the DEA ruling, another petition to reschedule marijuana is still in process, as it has been for the past six years.

 

Richard Nixon was just beginning his second term in office when the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) filed the first rescheduling petition. It took 22 years and numerous court challenges before the DEA finally rejected that petition. In the meantime, the DEA rescheduled marijuana's primary psychoactive ingredient, THC, as a Schedule II drug in 1985 and loosened controls over THC even further by rescheduling it to Schedule III in 1999. That allows doctors to prescribe Marinol, but not marijuana.

 

Another rescheduling petition, filed by Olsen in 1992, was rejected years later, as was a 1995 petition submitted by former NORML head, researcher, and professor of public policy Jon Gettman. In 2002, Gettman, in association with a long list of supporters, submitted yet another Cannabis Rescheduling Petition, which remains pending.

 

Under the CSA, he argues, substances must meet several criteria to be placed in Schedule I, the most restrictive schedule. The substance must have a high potential for abuse, it must have "no currently accepted medical use" in the US, and there must be a lack of accepted safety for use of the substance. Both the Olsen petition that was rejected last month (although the decision was not published until this week) and the pending Gettman petition argue that marijuana no longer qualifies to be placed in Schedule I because it does have "currently accepted medical use" in the US, citing in particular the ever-growing number of states that have legalized its medicinal use.

 

But the two petitions differ in the way they seek to remedy the situation, and it is this difference that accounts for the vastly different pace at which they have been handled by the DEA. While the Gettman petition is still awaiting a ruling six years after it was filed, Olsen's petition was only filed this year. The Gettman petition seeks to reschedule marijuana through the administrative process, the Olsen petition argues that the issue is a matter of statutory law. Under the CSA, if marijuana is found to have "currently accepted medical use," it cannot be Schedule I.

 

"I filed in May, filed a federal lawsuit in September, and got a ruling December," said Olsen. "The DEA has never moved that fast on a petition in its history, and by denying the petition, it is avoiding the possibility of having to deal with it again because now it will instead go back to the court of appeals."

 

Olsen's petition was not a request, but a demand that DEA recognize the reality that marijuana cannot be a Schedule I drug, he said. "I didn't ask for anything; I demanded that they comply with the law. It's not a Schedule I drug, and they are breaking the law by keeping it there," he said. "The statute says it can't be a Schedule I drug if it has accepted medical use, and 13 states say it has accepted medical use. Doesn't that mean anything?"

 

Not according to the DEA it doesn't. "Your petition and notice rest on your contention that federal drug law gives states the authority to determine, for purposes of the CSA, whether a drug has a "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," and that marijuana has such a currently accepted medical use because 12 states have passed laws relating to the use of marijuana for medical purposes," wrote DEA Deputy Administrator Michele Leonhart in denying the petition.

 

Leonhart cited the Raich medical marijuana case in arguing that marijuana has no "accepted medical use" because the federal government doesn't recognize it, and even quoted from the decision: "The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail," and "Congress expressly found that [marijuana] has no acceptable medical uses."

 

Leonhart also quickly disposed of additional arguments presented by Olsen, summarizing her position by finding that "the existence of state legislation is not relevant to a scheduling determination." Thus, "there is no statutory basis for DEA to grant your petition to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana. Nor is there any basis to initiate any action based on your August 5th notice. The Petitioner's request is denied."

 

Now, it will be up to the federal courts to decide who is right. "The court has to rule on my complaint to enjoin the DEA from enforcing Schedule I," said Olsen. "If they rule in my favor, the DEA cannot claim it is a Schedule I drug; it will have to remove it from Schedule I."

 

In either case, the losing side will appeal. Look for a resolution of the Olsen case some time in the not-so-near future.

 

That's just how Olsen planned it, said Gettmann. "I wasn't surprised at the DEA decision, and I don't think Carl was either," he said. "The whole point of his petition was to get this into federal court, and to do that, he had to be rejected administratively. This is really the beginning of Carl's legal challenge rather than the end."

 

Gettman credited Olsen with breaking new ground with the petition and even for inspiring Gettman himself to get involved with rescheduling. "Carl's arguments greatly clarify and build on state-level recognition of medical use, and set the stage for greater attention to this matter," he said. "And I have to say that Carl's activity and pioneering efforts are one of the things that inspired me to file the 1995 petition in the first place."

 

Meanwhile, Gettman's petition is still pending, although it has already moved through several stages of a lengthy bureaucratic process involving the DEA, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). "The last time we got a status report from FDA, they were nearing the end of their review," Gettman reported.

 

He is no hurry right now, he said. "We have deliberately decided not to pressure the government to complete the review. We would prefer to deal with the next administration instead of the current one," he explained. "Regardless of how the election turned out, we would have new personnel overseeing the process, and we think a fresh perspective would be beneficial."

 

Even if the FDA were to come down with a favorable review, there are many steps between that and actually rescheduling marijuana, and even then, the fight over marijuana will still be underway, said Gettman. "Rescheduling will not make medical marijuana available right away and it is not the end of deciding marijuana's regulatory status, it's the beginning," he said. "But it would change the regulatory environment and make it easier for states to accelerate the pace of reform, as well as make it easier for human studies to get under way and for companies to develop marijuana as a medical substance. Schedule I status discourages companies from doing that."

 

NORML founder Keith Stroup, who was in on the original 1972 rescheduling effort applauds Gettman's and Olsen's efforts, but said he has lost faith in ever gaining redress through that process. "I just don't believe anymore that the rulemaking process is ever going to work in our favor," he said. "We've been trying since 1973, and I think we're going to have to win this the old-fashioned way, through the legislative process or voter initiatives. I just don't think the people in those agencies have the principled courage to do the right thing," Stroup added.

 

"Still, I'm pleased that Carl and Jon continue to pursue these avenues," he said. "It's to our advantage to put pressure on the system wherever we can."

 

Whether it's a long-shot or not, the effort to change the marijuana laws through seeking rescheduling is not going away. And who knows? It might actually pay off big one of these years.

 

 

More crap

Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 2:23pm

If there was any danger related to THC then I could understand the DEA's stance. But a basically harmless plant? Just dumb. There are just no words to describe this idiotic belief that pot is evil, harmful, or immoral.

 

Absurd!

Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 2:46pm

Cannabis is one of the safest substances on this planet. It is completely absurd to have it a schedule1 drug.

 

Norman Lepoff, M.D. (ret)

 

Not THC

Comment posted by mrclay on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 3:25pm

From what I gather it's the 59 or so non-THC cannabinoids that the FDA (ostensibly) has issue with. It's like saying all herbs are illegal because they can't be synthesized from scratch.

 

Has no one tried to take on the CSA by petitioning for alcohol or tobacco to scheduled?

 

Scheduling Alcohol or Tobacco

Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 3:28pm

Actually, yes:

 

http://www.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/docume...wn_19890324.pdf

 

Carl Olsen

Iowans for Medical Marijuana

Post Office Box 4091

Des Moines, Iowa 50333

515-288-5798

 

Kill the Goose?

Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 3:32pm

What? The DEA kill the goose that laid the golden egg? 85% of all illicit drugs used is cannabis. This means the DEA and ONDCP would only have about 15% of the war on drugs to wage if it weren't for the prohibited status of cannabis. They'd lose power, money, jobs and wouldn't be able to confiscate nearly as much property. Forgive me for being so skeptical. But, cannabis prohibition doesn't seem to be about protecting the health of anyone. It's only seems to be about protecting prohibitionists.

 

Government's position an embarassment

Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 3:41pm

The federal government insists that marijuana remain a Schedule I drug which means that it has no accepted medical use in the U.S., and is unsafe for use even under medical supervision.

 

This is an embarrassment to science, the medical profession and even common sense.

 

There is a wealth of scientific data that supports the therapeutic efficacy and safety of marijuana for a wide variety of symptoms and conditions. Thousands of physicians have recommended marijuana for hundreds of thousands of patients in the 13 states that have legalized medical marijuana. Even common sense understands that doctors prescribe far more dangerous and addicting drugs than marijuana every day.

 

Ken Wolski, RN, MPA

Executive Director

Coalition for Medical Marijuana New Jersey, Inc.

844 Spruce St.

Trenton, NJ 08648

609.394.2137

www.cmmnj.org

ohamkrw@aol.com

 

Medical Marijuana by R.D. Seymour, E-Book Author.

Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 3:54pm

At the end of this train wrecked Bush Administration we can finally understand and pass Marijuana Legalization for medical and personal use with the newly elected administration. At a time like this, contacting and staying in contact with your local Senators and Congressmen is critical. If your district isn't represented to reform marijuana laws, then you must do it yourself. Stop thinking someone else is going to do all the work to end drug prohibition. Many locally polled seniors this week in Middle Tennessee have vowed to use medical marijuana to cure cancer and use it's comforting properties in cases of cancer and other deadly illnesses. I'll bet the seniors in your community aren't any different from mine. When given the chance to use Hemp Oil, a known cure for cancer to save one's life, the choice is simple and easy to understand. If it's illegal, we don't care, we're going to take safe, effective medicine that works.

 

What in Hades?

Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 4:17pm

What in ades does the DEA have to do with the legislative process. They are enforcement, correct.. In my country they are seperate entities. Man what a bunch of idiots in Washington.

 

DEA would loose capital gains if cannabis was legal

Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 4:22pm

The prison industry and the DEA are cousins, the DEA heads the laws that fill the prisons that make $ for the prison industry. therefore:

 

Human rights organizations, as well as political and social ones, are condemning what they are calling a new form of inhumane exploitation in the United States, where they say a prison population of up to 2 million - mostly Black and Hispanic - are working for various industries for a pittance. For the tycoons who have invested in the prison industry, it has been like finding a pot of gold. They don't have to worry about strikes or paying unemployment insurance, vacations or comp time. All of their workers are full-time, and never arrive late or are absent because of family problems; moreover, if they don't like the pay of 25 cents an hour and refuse to work, they are locked up in isolation cells.

 

There are approximately 2 million inmates in state, federal and private prisons throughout the country. According to California Prison Focus, "no other society in human history has imprisoned so many of its own citizens." The figures show that the United States has locked up more people than any other country: a half million more than China, which has a population five times greater than the U.S. Statistics reveal that the United States holds 25% of the world's prison population, but only 5% of the world's people. From less than 300,000 inmates in 1972, the jail population grew to 2 million by the year 2000. In 1990 it was one million. Ten years ago there were only five private prisons in the country, with a population of 2,000 inmates; now, there are 100, with 62,000 inmates. It is expected that by the coming decade, the number will hit 360,000, according to reports.

 

What has happened over the last 10 years? Why are there so many prisoners?

 

"The private contracting of prisoners for work fosters incentives to lock people up. Prisons depend on this income. Corporate stockholders who make money off prisoners' work lobby for longer sentences, in order to expand their workforce. The system feeds itself," says a study by the Progressive Labor Party, which accuses the prison industry of being "an imitation of Nazi Germany with respect to forced slave labor and concentration camps."

 

The prison industry complex is one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States and its investors are on Wall Street. "This multimillion-dollar industry has its own trade exhibitions, conventions, websites, and mail-order/Internet catalogs. It also has direct advertising campaigns, architecture companies, construction companies, investment houses on Wall Street, plumbing supply companies, food supply companies, armed security, and padded cells in a large variety of colors."

 

According to the Left Business Observer, the federal prison industry produces 100% of all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet-proof vests, ID tags, shirts, pants, tents, bags, and canteens. Along with war supplies, prison workers supply 98% of the entire market for equipment assembly services; 93% of paints and paintbrushes; 92% of stove assembly; 46% of body armor; 36% of home appliances; 30% of headphones/microphones/speakers; and 21% of office furniture. Airplane parts, medical supplies, and much more: prisoners are even raising seeing-eye dogs for blind people.

 

CRIME GOES DOWN, JAIL POPULATION GOES UP

 

According to reports by human rights organizations, these are the factors that increase the profit potential for those who invest in the prison industry complex:

 

. Jailing persons convicted of non-violent crimes, and long prison sentences for possession of microscopic quantities of illegal drugs. Federal law stipulates five years' imprisonment without possibility of parole for possession of 5 grams of crack or 3.5 ounces of heroin, and 10 years for possession of less than 2 ounces of rock-cocaine or crack. A sentence of 5 years for cocaine powder requires possession of 500 grams - 100 times more than the quantity of rock cocaine for the same sentence. Most of those who use cocaine powder are white, middle-class or rich people, while mostly Blacks and Latinos use rock cocaine. In Texas, a person may be sentenced for up to two years' imprisonment for possessing 4 ounces of marijuana. Here in New York, the 1973 Nelson Rockefeller anti-drug law provides for a mandatory prison sentence of 15 years to life for possession of 4 ounces of any illegal drug.

 

. The passage in 13 states of the "three strikes" laws (life in prison after being convicted of three felonies), made it necessary to build 20 new federal prisons. One of the most disturbing cases resulting from this measure was that of a prisoner who for stealing a car and two bicycles received three 25-year sentences.

 

. Longer sentences.

 

. The passage of laws that require minimum sentencing, without regard for circumstances.

 

. A large expansion of work by prisoners creating profits that motivate the incarceration of more people for longer periods of time.

 

. More punishment of prisoners, so as to lengthen their sentences.

 

HISTORY OF PRISON LABOR IN THE UNITED STATES

 

Prison labor has its roots in slavery. After the 1861-1865 Civil War, a system of "hiring out prisoners" was introduced in order to continue the slavery tradition. Freed slaves were charged with not carrying out their sharecropping commitments (cultivating someone else's land in exchange for part of the harvest) or petty thievery - which were almost never proven - and were then "hired out" for cotton picking, working in mines and building railroads. From 1870 until 1910 in the state of Georgia, 88% of hired-out convicts were Black. In Alabama, 93% of "hired-out" miners were Black. In Mississippi, a huge prison farm similar to the old slave plantations replaced the system of hiring out convicts. The notorious Parchman plantation existed until 1972.

 

During the post-Civil War period, Jim Crow racial segregation laws were imposed on every state, with legal segregation in schools, housing, marriages and many other aspects of daily life. "Today, a new set of markedly racist laws is imposing slave labor and sweatshops on the criminal justice system, now known as the prison industry complex," comments the Left Business Observer.

 

Who is investing? At least 37 states have legalized the contracting of prison labor by private corporations that mount their operations inside state prisons. The list of such companies contains the cream of U.S. corporate society: IBM, Boeing, Motorola, Microsoft, AT&T, Wireless, Texas Instrument, Dell, Compaq, Honeywell, Hewlett-Packard, Nortel, Lucent Technologies, 3Com, Intel, Northern Telecom, TWA, Nordstrom's, Revlon, Macy's, Pierre Cardin, Target Stores, and many more. All of these businesses are excited about the economic boom generation by prison labor. Just between 1980 and 1994, profits went up from $392 million to $1.31 billion. Inmates in state penitentiaries generally receive the minimum wage for their work, but not all; in Colorado, they get about $2 per hour, well under the minimum. And in privately-run prisons, they receive as little as 17 cents per hour for a maximum of six hours a day, the equivalent of $20 per month. The highest-paying private prison is CCA in Tennessee, where prisoners receive 50 cents per hour for what they call "highly skilled positions." At those rates, it is no surprise that inmates find the pay in federal prisons to be very generous. There, they can earn $1.25 an hour and work eight hours a day, and sometimes overtime. They can send home $200-$300 per month.

 

Thanks to prison labor, the United States is once again an attractive location for investment in work that was designed for Third World labor markets. A company that operated a maquiladora (assembly plant in Mexico near the border) closed down its operations there and relocated to San Quentin State Prison in California. In Texas, a factory fired its 150 workers and contracted the services of prisoner-workers from the private Lockhart Texas prison, where circuit boards are assembled for companies like IBM and Compaq.

 

[Former] Oregon State Representative Kevin Mannix recently urged Nike to cut its production in Indonesia and bring it to his state, telling the shoe manufacturer that "there won't be any transportation costs; we're offering you competitive prison labor (here)."

 

PRIVATE PRISONS

 

The prison privatization boom began in the 1980s, under the governments of Ronald Reagan and Bush Sr., but reached its height in 1990 under William Clinton, when Wall Street stocks were selling like hotcakes. Clinton's program for cutting the federal workforce resulted in the Justice Departments contracting of private prison corporations for the incarceration of undocumented workers and high-security inmates.

 

Private prisons are the biggest business in the prison industry complex. About 18 corporations guard 10,000 prisoners in 27 states. The two largest are Correctional Corporation of America (CCA) and Wackenhut, which together control 75%. Private prisons receive a guaranteed amount of money for each prisoner, independent of what it costs to maintain each one. According to Russell Boraas, a private prison administrator in Virginia, "the secret to low operating costs is having a minimal number of guards for the maximum number of prisoners." The CCA has an ultra-modern prison in Lawrenceville, Virginia, where five guards on dayshift and two at night watch over 750 prisoners. In these prisons, inmates may get their sentences reduced for "good behavior," but for any infraction, they get 30 days added - which means more profits for CCA. According to a study of New Mexico prisons, it was found that CCA inmates lost "good behavior time" at a rate eight times higher than those in state prisons.

 

IMPORTING AND EXPORTING INMATES

 

Profits are so good that now there is a new business: importing inmates with long sentences, meaning the worst criminals. When a federal judge ruled that overcrowding in Texas prisons was cruel and unusual punishment, the CCA signed contracts with sheriffs in poor counties to build and run new jails and share the profits. According to a December 1998 Atlantic Monthly magazine article, this program was backed by investors from Merrill-Lynch, Shearson-Lehman, American Express and Allstate, and the operation was scattered all over rural Texas. That state's governor, Ann Richards, followed the example of Mario Cuomo in New York and built so many state prisons that the market became flooded, cutting into private prison profits.

 

After a law signed by Clinton in 1996 - ending court supervision and decisions - caused overcrowding and violent, unsafe conditions in federal prisons, private prison corporations in Texas began to contact other states whose prisons were overcrowded, offering "rent-a-cell" services in the CCA prisons located in small towns in Texas. The commission for a rent-a-cell salesman is $2.50 to $5.50 per day per bed. The county gets $1.50 for each prisoner.

 

STATISTICS

 

Ninety-seven percent of 125,000 federal inmates have been convicted of non-violent crimes. It is believed that more than half of the 623,000 inmates in municipal or county jails are innocent of the crimes they are accused of. Of these, the majority are awaiting trial. Two-thirds of the one million state prisoners have committed non-violent offenses. Sixteen percent of the country's 2 million prisoners suffer from mental illness.

 

Global Research Articles by Vicky Pelaez

 

Great work guys

Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 4:32pm

I really love the passion with which you guys attack this issue.

 

Unfortunately I agree that these guys aren't going to kill the golden goose and either legislation or revolution will be the only solution.

 

Jeff

Reputation Management

Algae Oil

 

 

And what about US Patent 6630507?

Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 5:43pm

"US Patent 6630507 titled "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" which is assigned to The United States of America, as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services."

 

So how in the world can cannabis not be rescheduled with the above patent in mind?

 

Obama, here's a 'change' your administration can sink its teeth into -- although that's highly unlikely...

 

 

medicinal = not class 1?

Comment posted by mlang52 on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 6:17pm

Diacetylmorphine (diamorphine) is a pain medicine. But, since some politician decided to change its name to "HEROIN" it is "not medicinally" useful? Its use was curtailed when it was found out to have, inadvertently, addicted many people! But, that was from medical mismanagement, not from the fact that it is "more addicting" than any other pain medicine! Fentanyl is much stronger. Yet it is class 2. That is exactly where heroin should be. It should also be used for treatment of pain. It would be a lot cheaper than Kadian, Oxycontin, and those other $1,000 / month prescriptions. Oh, I let it slip my mind that the DEA also tells pain doctors how to treat their patients. They have all the knowledge it takes to tell doctors how to inadequately treat their chronic pain patients! And it is either "their way or the highway"! UHHG!

 

Lack of acceptable safety?!?!?

Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 9:12pm

I'm 50 years old and have been smoking pot since I was 15, dailiy since age 22. I am in better shape than most 20-somethings, and I can still hop on a bicycle and ride 80 miles and not feel it the next day. I smoked my way through grad school, wasn't late on a single assignment, missed only one class in 3 years because of shingles, and my advisor nominated me for a scholarship, describing me as a "strong student." My biggest health problem is sports injuries. I have a resting pulse rate of about 60 and I"m stronger than either of my brothers that don't smoke pot. I have an excellent credit rating, no small feat in this economy. Also, I haven't been pulled over for anything in 5 years now, and the only citation I ever got was for speeding. I just don't speed any more. (I dare any cop to find a reason to pull me over for anything!)

 

I would love to go and testify before congress and show them in person what 35 years of pot smoking will do to a person!

 

reply | email this page

Great job Carl!

Comment posted by Anonymous on Fri, 01/09/2009 - 11:44pm

You always hear about NORML and MPP working to change marijuana laws, but rarely do you hear of individual freedom fighters like Carl Olsen. Keep up the great work Carl!!

 

BuffaloBill

Mason City IA